Mess
Apr 27, 08:22 AM
completely blown out of proportion!
The data is sent anonymously and doesn�t give you an accurate pinpoint of where you are if any indication of where you are. It�s not exactly used to come and get you if you have been somewhere you shouldn�t have been :rolleyes: so kick back and relax.
Way too much fuss about nothing personally! :p
The data is sent anonymously and doesn�t give you an accurate pinpoint of where you are if any indication of where you are. It�s not exactly used to come and get you if you have been somewhere you shouldn�t have been :rolleyes: so kick back and relax.
Way too much fuss about nothing personally! :p
mkrishnan
Aug 7, 03:38 PM
I'm surprised res-independent UI was not discussed, but Apple has already said (http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/GraphicsImaging/ResolutionIndependentUI.html) that is coming, so maybe it's just not polished enough to bother showing yet. (Or maybe it's better to show when new displays come out? Today's new low prices on Cinema Displays might hint at new displays to come later.)
I am not entirely clear on what all CoreAnimation does and does not do, but I'm wondering if it and RIUI are not related at some level.... some of its feature set sounds like exactly what one would need to make the RIUI easy to implement.... We'll have to wait and see.
I voted Time Machine. I'm not even sure I'd really use it. But it's a neat idea, and the implementation looks to be nothing less than stunning. When I first saw it, I too thought system restore, but it's clearly substantially more sophisticated and (what a shock) oriented at enhancing your experience doing actual stuff with your computer, rather than at undoing the mess Windows updaters make when they fail to do what they're supposed to. :D
To me overall it seems like I'll be excited to get my next Mac with Leopard pre-installed but I will not rush out to purchase a copy....
I am not entirely clear on what all CoreAnimation does and does not do, but I'm wondering if it and RIUI are not related at some level.... some of its feature set sounds like exactly what one would need to make the RIUI easy to implement.... We'll have to wait and see.
I voted Time Machine. I'm not even sure I'd really use it. But it's a neat idea, and the implementation looks to be nothing less than stunning. When I first saw it, I too thought system restore, but it's clearly substantially more sophisticated and (what a shock) oriented at enhancing your experience doing actual stuff with your computer, rather than at undoing the mess Windows updaters make when they fail to do what they're supposed to. :D
To me overall it seems like I'll be excited to get my next Mac with Leopard pre-installed but I will not rush out to purchase a copy....
epitaphic
Sep 13, 02:00 PM
I think you've misunderstood. Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest are one microarch now. That's Intel's point -- the core is essentially the same.
Conroe and its derivatives are a step away from Intel's former flagship NetBurst, but even these processors are a bit of a dying breed: during Intel's shift to 45nm, the company will no longer focus on derived microprocessor cores in favor of refined unified core architectures.
So what do you think they meant with M/C/W being a derived arch and Penryn,etc being unified archs?
From what I understood, they'll stop having different characteristics (FSB,RAM,Cache) and instead just differentiate them with MHz and core count. Hence all the stories that future Intel chips (starting with Penryn I presume) won't use FSB.
Conroe and its derivatives are a step away from Intel's former flagship NetBurst, but even these processors are a bit of a dying breed: during Intel's shift to 45nm, the company will no longer focus on derived microprocessor cores in favor of refined unified core architectures.
So what do you think they meant with M/C/W being a derived arch and Penryn,etc being unified archs?
From what I understood, they'll stop having different characteristics (FSB,RAM,Cache) and instead just differentiate them with MHz and core count. Hence all the stories that future Intel chips (starting with Penryn I presume) won't use FSB.
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
mwswami
Jul 21, 05:08 PM
Problem with that arrangement is that you are limited to the use of two cores for any one appication and there are already several I use that can use up to almost 3 at once. It would also get very confusing which mini you are on at a given moment.
Yeah I could also get a second G5 Quad. But that would be cheating. :D
Got it. Thanks!
If you haven't seen it before, I found this (http://www.macminicolo.net/) very interesting.
Yeah I could also get a second G5 Quad. But that would be cheating. :D
Got it. Thanks!
If you haven't seen it before, I found this (http://www.macminicolo.net/) very interesting.
SevenInchScrew
Dec 9, 01:09 AM
DoFoT:
It depends on what you want from a game. If you care more about driving and tuning than painting and whatnot go buy GT5. Its all about driving and not much else.
I love it because i'm a bit of a car nerd. If you like cars you will like GT5. If you love cars you will love GT5, its just that simple.
I guess I'll throw in my counterpoint to that then, just to give him another opinion to mull over, because I love cars and don't love GT5....
The game is not real good. Every time I've played it, I can't help but think of how it could have been SOOO much better, if they just trimmed back on the crazy feature list a bit. The game tries to be everything to everyone who likes cars. But the problem with that is, trying to do many things means you'll never excel at any of them. Often the implementation of things in this game is a little weak or unfulfilling because of that. For example...
NASCAR is in, but is pretty plain and boring, and doesn't feel like a real cup race. If you like NASCAR, you'd be better served with a full game based on that.
Same with WRC stuff. Yes, the rally is pretty decent. But, I've played a bunch of REALLY awesome rally games before, and this is nowhere near as good.
Day and Night cycles, and Weather effects look amazing.... on the very few tracks that you can actually have them function on.
The sounds of the cars, just as with every GT game that has come before it, is terrible. Very few cars actually sound like their real-world version, and when you tune them up, they get even less distinctive.
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
And lastly, the menus are just pitiful. It really feels like they designed them first, all those years ago, and then never touched them again. So many games have come and gone with great menu systems, and this game took nothing away from them, because they are just awful in this game.
This game really had the potential to be amazing. If they got rid of NASCAR, WRC, Karts, etc, and took out about 4-500 of the boring, crappy cars, we'd be getting somewhere. Use the time and effort that those removed things would have occupied to make some manageable menus, more Premium cars, and get the Day-Night cycle and Weather on all tracks. That would have been great. But that isn't what we got.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good game. But GT games aren't supposed to just be good, they are supposed to be GREAT. But even after a 6 year wait, we only got pretty good.
But hey, as I've said on many occasions, it does make some DAMN GOOD screenshots. Almost unreal at times...
Click to HUGE-size
http://imgur.com/hLJ12.jpg
http://imgur.com/V06hb.jpg
http://imgur.com/Vciun.jpg
http://imgur.com/ZGPiF.jpg
http://imgur.com/IMrhk.jpg
It depends on what you want from a game. If you care more about driving and tuning than painting and whatnot go buy GT5. Its all about driving and not much else.
I love it because i'm a bit of a car nerd. If you like cars you will like GT5. If you love cars you will love GT5, its just that simple.
I guess I'll throw in my counterpoint to that then, just to give him another opinion to mull over, because I love cars and don't love GT5....
The game is not real good. Every time I've played it, I can't help but think of how it could have been SOOO much better, if they just trimmed back on the crazy feature list a bit. The game tries to be everything to everyone who likes cars. But the problem with that is, trying to do many things means you'll never excel at any of them. Often the implementation of things in this game is a little weak or unfulfilling because of that. For example...
NASCAR is in, but is pretty plain and boring, and doesn't feel like a real cup race. If you like NASCAR, you'd be better served with a full game based on that.
Same with WRC stuff. Yes, the rally is pretty decent. But, I've played a bunch of REALLY awesome rally games before, and this is nowhere near as good.
Day and Night cycles, and Weather effects look amazing.... on the very few tracks that you can actually have them function on.
The sounds of the cars, just as with every GT game that has come before it, is terrible. Very few cars actually sound like their real-world version, and when you tune them up, they get even less distinctive.
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
And lastly, the menus are just pitiful. It really feels like they designed them first, all those years ago, and then never touched them again. So many games have come and gone with great menu systems, and this game took nothing away from them, because they are just awful in this game.
This game really had the potential to be amazing. If they got rid of NASCAR, WRC, Karts, etc, and took out about 4-500 of the boring, crappy cars, we'd be getting somewhere. Use the time and effort that those removed things would have occupied to make some manageable menus, more Premium cars, and get the Day-Night cycle and Weather on all tracks. That would have been great. But that isn't what we got.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good game. But GT games aren't supposed to just be good, they are supposed to be GREAT. But even after a 6 year wait, we only got pretty good.
But hey, as I've said on many occasions, it does make some DAMN GOOD screenshots. Almost unreal at times...
Click to HUGE-size
http://imgur.com/hLJ12.jpg
http://imgur.com/V06hb.jpg
http://imgur.com/Vciun.jpg
http://imgur.com/ZGPiF.jpg
http://imgur.com/IMrhk.jpg
JAT
Apr 20, 12:15 PM
Not at all. I'm only showing where Apple has done what they don't like being done to them. Only a die hard defends them at all cost.
No, only an irrational person defends them at all cost. A die hard is one who puts up with occasional mistakes in the products.
Did threads just get merged again? Because the last dozen posts are complete rehashes of earlier posts.
No, only an irrational person defends them at all cost. A die hard is one who puts up with occasional mistakes in the products.
Did threads just get merged again? Because the last dozen posts are complete rehashes of earlier posts.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 02:18 PM
OK, let's move onto Obama's grades. When Obama caves and releases those, citing more important issues we need to deal with, the press will then go after his professors and classmates. What else will the wingnuts ask for?
I hope Obama doesn't cave in anymore. These vampires have gotten enough. Not that I ever liked Trump, but I find him entirely despicable now. His approach is to attack, attack, attack, and keep the heat off himself.
I hope Obama doesn't cave in anymore. These vampires have gotten enough. Not that I ever liked Trump, but I find him entirely despicable now. His approach is to attack, attack, attack, and keep the heat off himself.
eseminario
Jun 9, 01:42 AM
Anybody knows if thebunlocked version will be available on launch day too?
mc68k
Dec 23, 06:28 PM
well im a little stuck. my zonda r isnt fast enough for a lot of the top races, and the newly appointed online dealership has nice cars, but it doesnt rotate between them. so im really waiting for a nice car to come up in the used garage. either that or ill have to save up like 4M for a dealership car
Zadillo
Aug 27, 06:04 AM
Damn PowerPC fans.
Apple is INTEL now. We Love Intel Because Stevie Tells Us So.
We hate AMD and IBM. Should Apple ever move to another CPU provider, we will seamlessly transition to hating Intel again. This is the Way of the Mac.
What's so good about G5's anyway? They are slow, too hot, and skull juice.
Why do we love Intel? Because Steve says to, and Core 2 Duo is powerful, cool, not permanently drunk, allows us to run Windows and helps Apple increase its market share.
We love ATi because just like Intel, their products are the best at the moment. We still love nVIDIA because their GPUs are in the Mac Pro.
We love Israel because they make our Core 2 Duos and we love China because they make our Macs. We love California because that's where Our Lord Stevie J is (Don't particularly care about the rest of the US, sorry guys).
We love our Big Cats because they run so fast and look so clean and powerful (Hmmm... Mystery of OS codenames revealed?) and of course because they are not Windows, which are susceptible to breaking...
People who live in Windows shouldn't throw Viruses?
Off track...
Anyway, Rawr to all you PowerPC fanboys (And girls)
Intel 4EVER!
I know this is just a joke, but even so it's stupid, because the implication is that the only reason anyone here might like the chips Intel is coming out with is because they have been brainwashed into liking them now that Apple uses them (i.e. if Apple was still using PowerPC chips, or had switched to AMD, we would all be sitting here talking about how crappy the Core 2 Duo chips are).
I'm sure there are some people like that, but it is insulting to plenty of people here who actually do know something about the various chips that Intel and AMD make and base their opinions on them just on their actual merits and weaknesses.
-Zadillo
Apple is INTEL now. We Love Intel Because Stevie Tells Us So.
We hate AMD and IBM. Should Apple ever move to another CPU provider, we will seamlessly transition to hating Intel again. This is the Way of the Mac.
What's so good about G5's anyway? They are slow, too hot, and skull juice.
Why do we love Intel? Because Steve says to, and Core 2 Duo is powerful, cool, not permanently drunk, allows us to run Windows and helps Apple increase its market share.
We love ATi because just like Intel, their products are the best at the moment. We still love nVIDIA because their GPUs are in the Mac Pro.
We love Israel because they make our Core 2 Duos and we love China because they make our Macs. We love California because that's where Our Lord Stevie J is (Don't particularly care about the rest of the US, sorry guys).
We love our Big Cats because they run so fast and look so clean and powerful (Hmmm... Mystery of OS codenames revealed?) and of course because they are not Windows, which are susceptible to breaking...
People who live in Windows shouldn't throw Viruses?
Off track...
Anyway, Rawr to all you PowerPC fanboys (And girls)
Intel 4EVER!
I know this is just a joke, but even so it's stupid, because the implication is that the only reason anyone here might like the chips Intel is coming out with is because they have been brainwashed into liking them now that Apple uses them (i.e. if Apple was still using PowerPC chips, or had switched to AMD, we would all be sitting here talking about how crappy the Core 2 Duo chips are).
I'm sure there are some people like that, but it is insulting to plenty of people here who actually do know something about the various chips that Intel and AMD make and base their opinions on them just on their actual merits and weaknesses.
-Zadillo
Butters
Aug 11, 11:28 AM
Ill only buy it if stupid little spoilt english kids dont buy it, i dont mean posh english kids but yobbish ones, I want it to be the coolest thing in the world. The nano has become the essential for yobbish teenage boys and girls in the uk and I just want those stupid turds to stick to their quote "amazing black v3's with itunes and video" which dont actually have itunes and video!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: Im not ageist because im 16.....
I agree with that
I agree with that
mwswami
Jul 21, 04:48 PM
Interesting. You know links where we can learn more about Bensley?
TechReport: The Bensley server platform debuts (http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=1)
TechReport: The Bensley server platform debuts (http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=1)
zacman
Apr 19, 03:18 PM
HA I knew you were going to say that. developer prefer to develop for iOS. iOS user spend more money on Apps than Android user. Plus iPod Touch user can use the same apps as the iPhone. There won't be a Windows for the smartphones theres already too many players in the game.
Well Rovio (Angry Birds) thinks otherwise:
http://www.insidemobileapps.com/2011/03/13/angry-birds-android-ios/
"The company said in December that it expected to make $1 million per month from Android by the end of 2010. (...) Now that the app has seen about 100 million installs across all platforms, Rovio is not getting the same initial bump in paid download revenue from Apple�s app store. On Android, the company doesn�t offer paid Angry Birds apps, but sees recurring revenue from advertising."
So they make more money with their free Android version than they do with the paid iOS version.
Well Rovio (Angry Birds) thinks otherwise:
http://www.insidemobileapps.com/2011/03/13/angry-birds-android-ios/
"The company said in December that it expected to make $1 million per month from Android by the end of 2010. (...) Now that the app has seen about 100 million installs across all platforms, Rovio is not getting the same initial bump in paid download revenue from Apple�s app store. On Android, the company doesn�t offer paid Angry Birds apps, but sees recurring revenue from advertising."
So they make more money with their free Android version than they do with the paid iOS version.
rovex
Mar 22, 02:51 PM
Keep telling yourself that. You'll sleep better at night.
Since it's true (I'm certain) you can enjoy living in a dump.
People like you don't get far in life, sorry to say.
If you can't spell "they're" correctly "you're" hardly a credible source.
Battery life is worse because of the specs. Considering that the iPad can play sufficiently high-bitrate videos, I don't see much value in reducing battery life to compete on the basis of specs.
Wrong. Battery life is worse because the size is considerably smaller.
Since it's true (I'm certain) you can enjoy living in a dump.
People like you don't get far in life, sorry to say.
If you can't spell "they're" correctly "you're" hardly a credible source.
Battery life is worse because of the specs. Considering that the iPad can play sufficiently high-bitrate videos, I don't see much value in reducing battery life to compete on the basis of specs.
Wrong. Battery life is worse because the size is considerably smaller.
mobilehavoc
Apr 6, 02:00 PM
Nice...I'm glad to have a more rare piece of hardware. I love mine and have no issues, it'll only get better over time.Reminds me of the days of the RAZR, that's what the iPhone and iPad have become.
Honda sells a TON more cars than BMW by a huge factor...I'd rather drive a BMW, I guess you're all happy with the Hondas :)
Honda sells a TON more cars than BMW by a huge factor...I'd rather drive a BMW, I guess you're all happy with the Hondas :)
DoogieWoogie
Nov 29, 03:37 PM
I don't usually rate threads negative or positive but this time I'll make an exception - NEGATIVE. This is bad news.
swingerofbirch
Aug 25, 05:00 PM
It seems like a preponderance of the issues people have are with the notebooks.
Do you think it could be because Apple has the thinnest laptops on the market which means they sacrifice build quality and heat management?
When I looked at the innards of an iBook G3 it was basically "a mess" in there...nothing looked modular like you would see inside the new Mac pro.
Do you think it could be because Apple has the thinnest laptops on the market which means they sacrifice build quality and heat management?
When I looked at the innards of an iBook G3 it was basically "a mess" in there...nothing looked modular like you would see inside the new Mac pro.
Unspeaked
Nov 29, 01:08 PM
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
Dude, I think you're right on, and your English is fine (better than some native English speakers who post here, in any case!).
Distribution methods like iTunes make the middle men - the labels - obsolete. It puts artists on a level playing field and coupled with viral marketing like MySpace and such it really spells the end for record labels as we know them.
If anything, all a "record label" might hope to be in the future is a marketing branch that works with an artists and takes a small cut of their sales, not the eight headed monster who controls ever aspect of an artists career - from where they record their album to what sizes their t-shirts come in - that we find today.
And as far as radio goes, it's totally done as a means of making hits. Heck, even next generation satellite radio is struggling - you're telling me terrestrial radio, which is nothing more than 15 minutes of talk and 20 minutes of commercial per hour is deciding what's popular today? Nuh uh. Try: MySpace, commercials, blogs, television series background music, etc. THAT's where today's hits come from.
FM radio and MTV lost all significance ages ago. If you're using them to find hits, maybe you should get off your PowerMac 6100 and upgrade your 14,000 baud modem to a DSL connection so you can visit the real world...
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
Dude, I think you're right on, and your English is fine (better than some native English speakers who post here, in any case!).
Distribution methods like iTunes make the middle men - the labels - obsolete. It puts artists on a level playing field and coupled with viral marketing like MySpace and such it really spells the end for record labels as we know them.
If anything, all a "record label" might hope to be in the future is a marketing branch that works with an artists and takes a small cut of their sales, not the eight headed monster who controls ever aspect of an artists career - from where they record their album to what sizes their t-shirts come in - that we find today.
And as far as radio goes, it's totally done as a means of making hits. Heck, even next generation satellite radio is struggling - you're telling me terrestrial radio, which is nothing more than 15 minutes of talk and 20 minutes of commercial per hour is deciding what's popular today? Nuh uh. Try: MySpace, commercials, blogs, television series background music, etc. THAT's where today's hits come from.
FM radio and MTV lost all significance ages ago. If you're using them to find hits, maybe you should get off your PowerMac 6100 and upgrade your 14,000 baud modem to a DSL connection so you can visit the real world...
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 03:30 PM
I don't get nearly as many dropped calls when switching between towers like I did when I used T-Mobile and Cingular.
You know as well as I do that has to do with the signal, not whether it is Code division or time division. If you claim differently, show me reputable references.
You know as well as I do that has to do with the signal, not whether it is Code division or time division. If you claim differently, show me reputable references.
bamerican
Apr 25, 03:23 PM
Where did this attorney go to law school...
If you want a free consultation, check him out here (http://www.mayerlawgroup.com/).
And one of the counts in the complaint doesn't even allege a civil claim.
He's in way over his head. Apple's lawyers are going to eat him alive.
This is going to be fun to watch.
If you want a free consultation, check him out here (http://www.mayerlawgroup.com/).
And one of the counts in the complaint doesn't even allege a civil claim.
He's in way over his head. Apple's lawyers are going to eat him alive.
This is going to be fun to watch.
mdlooker
Apr 8, 05:56 AM
Well I wonder what lesson will be taught here? I don't think Apple will trust them ever again with blockbuster items. I wonder if companies hold grudges?
RichP
Sep 13, 08:19 AM
Nice! Im with iGary and others, soon as they are out, Im buying. That should correspond nicely with the release of CS3.
Im doing work in Alias these days, I can only imagine how 8 cores could do a render!
Suprised the MacPro could handle the heat of 8 cores with its 4-core heatsink design. I read the article about Kentsfield on Tom's Hardware, and that chip made ALOT of heat; these are basically the same chip.
EDIT: Who knows, the hot setup may be a refurb'ed MacPro 2.0Ghz, then drop in better CPUs!
Im doing work in Alias these days, I can only imagine how 8 cores could do a render!
Suprised the MacPro could handle the heat of 8 cores with its 4-core heatsink design. I read the article about Kentsfield on Tom's Hardware, and that chip made ALOT of heat; these are basically the same chip.
EDIT: Who knows, the hot setup may be a refurb'ed MacPro 2.0Ghz, then drop in better CPUs!
Erasmus
Aug 26, 07:36 PM
not trying to start a war or anything but...isn't that what the mac pro is for? isn't the iMac considered consumer grade while the mbp is considered professional grade??? i think it is badass that the mbp is faster than the imac.
Yes, but Conroe processors are less expensive than Merom for faster clocks, faster bus speeds, but increased power consumption, but considering iMacs used to house G5's, and they don't rely on battery power, Conroe is the logical choice for the iMac.
Obviously the MBP should get the 2.16 and 2.33 Ghz Meroms, as you couldn't put a Conroe in one, but the MBP should not limit the speed of the iMac, just because it's not "Pro", and I would personally consider the iMac at least "semiPro" because it is damn fast. I've said before that there is much too much of a price and capability gap between iMac and Mac Pro, which could easily be filled with a "Pizza Box" or more likely, and probably more favourable in my opinion, a "fullPro" larger version of iMac (upgradeable of course) which I designate iMac Ultra, cos it's a cool name.
There are good gradients between Mac Mini and iMac, MB and MBP, but not between iMac and MP.
An appropriately maxed (RAM and GPU) 20" iMac costs AU$3169.
A "comparable" MP (20" ACD, 2Ghz, 2Gb RAM) costs AU$5148
That's 60% more. Enough to buy a Macbook to take to Uni. Apple needs a ~AU$4000 option to fill the gap, ie. with a bigger screen, upgradeable, better GPU, better CPU, and I will be very happy. :rolleyes:
Yes, but Conroe processors are less expensive than Merom for faster clocks, faster bus speeds, but increased power consumption, but considering iMacs used to house G5's, and they don't rely on battery power, Conroe is the logical choice for the iMac.
Obviously the MBP should get the 2.16 and 2.33 Ghz Meroms, as you couldn't put a Conroe in one, but the MBP should not limit the speed of the iMac, just because it's not "Pro", and I would personally consider the iMac at least "semiPro" because it is damn fast. I've said before that there is much too much of a price and capability gap between iMac and Mac Pro, which could easily be filled with a "Pizza Box" or more likely, and probably more favourable in my opinion, a "fullPro" larger version of iMac (upgradeable of course) which I designate iMac Ultra, cos it's a cool name.
There are good gradients between Mac Mini and iMac, MB and MBP, but not between iMac and MP.
An appropriately maxed (RAM and GPU) 20" iMac costs AU$3169.
A "comparable" MP (20" ACD, 2Ghz, 2Gb RAM) costs AU$5148
That's 60% more. Enough to buy a Macbook to take to Uni. Apple needs a ~AU$4000 option to fill the gap, ie. with a bigger screen, upgradeable, better GPU, better CPU, and I will be very happy. :rolleyes: