h1r0ll3r
Feb 22, 11:47 AM
Man I hate this friggin monitor. Can't wait until I get a new(er) one.
MattDell
Sep 6, 08:34 PM
I do backup all of my ipod videos on DVD.
That brings up something that has really bugged me for a while. I think it is absurd that if you delete something you bought from Apple, you have to pay to get it back! If I buy a song, I should be buying a license to that song... not just one 'instance' of that particular song.
Apple keeps track of all the songs you buy anyway, so it's my opinion that you should be able to just "get another copy" if you have already purchased a song.
I think this would be especially great for movies. That way you won't have to eat up precious hard drive space. You could purchase your movie, download it, watch it, delete it, and then re-download the movie if you want to view it again.
-Matt
That brings up something that has really bugged me for a while. I think it is absurd that if you delete something you bought from Apple, you have to pay to get it back! If I buy a song, I should be buying a license to that song... not just one 'instance' of that particular song.
Apple keeps track of all the songs you buy anyway, so it's my opinion that you should be able to just "get another copy" if you have already purchased a song.
I think this would be especially great for movies. That way you won't have to eat up precious hard drive space. You could purchase your movie, download it, watch it, delete it, and then re-download the movie if you want to view it again.
-Matt
rorschach
Apr 2, 04:29 AM
Thus far, stability-wise, it is not too bad for a beta. A lot of the UI rendering errors from beta 1 have been ironed out. My bet would be that this will be a $29 upgrade, as it doesn't add much but rather refines what 10.6 started.
Don't get your hopes up for that $29 upgrade. Lion has many more "major" features than SL did.
-Launchpad
-Full Screen apps
-Mission Control
-Auto Save
-Versions
-Resume
-AirDrop
-Full Disk Encryption
Plus there may be unannounced features that could be unveiled at WWDC or a media event before that. Stacks, Cover Flow, and Back To My Mac were announced well after Apple started seeding Leopard to devs.
Snow Leopard's "What's New" pages talks about text selection in PDFs and ejecting disks. :rolleyes:
I say it'll cost $99.
Don't get your hopes up for that $29 upgrade. Lion has many more "major" features than SL did.
-Launchpad
-Full Screen apps
-Mission Control
-Auto Save
-Versions
-Resume
-AirDrop
-Full Disk Encryption
Plus there may be unannounced features that could be unveiled at WWDC or a media event before that. Stacks, Cover Flow, and Back To My Mac were announced well after Apple started seeding Leopard to devs.
Snow Leopard's "What's New" pages talks about text selection in PDFs and ejecting disks. :rolleyes:
I say it'll cost $99.
ONH
Jun 24, 12:36 PM
I dont estimate OS XI or 11 in the next few years.
If the iOS is integratet like a second workspace in linux, then I think its good opton, but if its integreated as fast boot system for accesing mail and internet its rubbish (get a iPod touch, if you need iOS for accesing mail and internet).
If the iOS is integratet like a second workspace in linux, then I think its good opton, but if its integreated as fast boot system for accesing mail and internet its rubbish (get a iPod touch, if you need iOS for accesing mail and internet).
charlesdjones1
Apr 12, 06:36 PM
After owning every iPod out there, I can honestly say Apple's next approach to the Classic lineup could be something familiar yet adding updated features to take advantage of the newest tech, but no major changes to an otherwise timeless layout. I still use my 80gb model, and wouldn't change anything personally. I've used the Touch, the Nano, and the Classic, to me, for pure music enjoyment the Classic is all I will ever need or use. I have spliced together a possible direction Apple could/ would go in, and I believe it makes the perfect iPod Classic. Basically, anyone familiar with the older Nano style Touch Wheel is going to be right at home, as the the wheel is smaller by about 25% compared to the Classice, but still being more than accessable. At the same time adding a larger, higher def screen makes viewing song selection, videos, podcasts, and coverflow much easier and appealing to the eyes now, yet using todays AMOLED screen which is lighter, brighter and easier on the battery life. A standard 320 gb hard drive keeps you up to date on all the latest hi def content that is released over iTunes, but keeping a smaller overall form factor makes it lighter in the pocket. These are my ideas which I feel would be popular for newer users and older ones as well. Just for an added bonus, you could implement a streamlined touch interface using the classic style menu, adding nice features such as the App Store and even some touch based games.
skinniezinho
Nov 27, 11:30 AM
I can get it for $65 from Swatch. I'm not sure where else I can buy it in the US. I like it, but I'm not sure how good it looks in person. I'm not sure if I am a fan of those glow in the dark hands either.
It looks better in person than in pics..the size is just "perfect" at least for me...
It looks better in person than in pics..the size is just "perfect" at least for me...
apb3
Aug 20, 09:26 AM
I'm getting a little confused, are you trying to say keyboards are not easy input methods? QWERTY keyboards are FULL keyboards like the ones you and I are using to type in these forums. I completely agree with you that phone/PSP-esque multi-press solutions are not good for extended use, which is why I think the MYLO is such a good example of what can be done with a "portable WiFi" device because it has a full keyboard.
Actually, no. The only thing that makes a keyboard "QWERTY" is the Q being next to the W next to the.... you get the idea. There are "Full-Sized" QWERTY keyboards and smaller ones likie the one for my old Newton. Every definition I checked online this afternoon says nothing about a size at which an identically laid out keyboard becomes QWERTY and under which it is something else.
DROP DEAD
drop dead tattoo.
drop dead tattoo. look drop dead attractive. look drop dead attractive. AidenShaw. Jul 13, 09:06 AM. Nope, it doesn#39;t. Besides, I already told you in
drop dead tattoo. Best use of temporary tattoos; Best use of temporary tattoos. MacRumors. Apr 26, 02:03 PM
drop dead tattoo. altquot;Drop
That#39;s my drop dead tattoo. diamond.g. Apr 21, 09:00 AM. How exactly did ATamp;T have a walled garden, at least in the same sense as Apple?
drop dead tattoo. drop dead
drop dead tattoo. her Drop Dead Fred tattoo! her Drop Dead Fred tattoo! Mac-Addict. Oct 24, 08:28 AM. 2GB of RAM :eek:
drop dead tattoo.
drop dead tattoo. human heart
#drop dead #face tattoo
drop dead tattoo. drop dead
Reacent Post
Actually, no. The only thing that makes a keyboard "QWERTY" is the Q being next to the W next to the.... you get the idea. There are "Full-Sized" QWERTY keyboards and smaller ones likie the one for my old Newton. Every definition I checked online this afternoon says nothing about a size at which an identically laid out keyboard becomes QWERTY and under which it is something else.
rjohnstone
Apr 26, 01:31 PM
It mostly has to do with if it is confusing. Apple has a trade mark on "App Store" to sell applications through an online store. Amazon is using "Appstore" and is selling applications through an online store. Apple has a pretty strong case that Amazon is infringing on their trademark. If Amazon used "Appstore" for a chain of tire rotating store, Amazon could probably be in the clear. As it stands they are too close in intended use. Microsofts strategy is to invalidate the trademark. It's up to the USPTO to decide on the trademark.
Apple doesn't have the trademark yet.
It's still in the opposition phase. ;)
Apple doesn't have the trademark yet.
It's still in the opposition phase. ;)
Multimedia
Nov 20, 01:58 PM
I think the number or cores will finally level off for a while once 8 core machines
become mainstream.Mainstream? I doubt any 8+ core users will be mainstream outside of commercial use.The next goal will be production refinements like 45 nm production for greater energy efficiency.I'll be surprised if that won't lead to a 16-core offering about a year from now or next winter 2008 at the latest. We are about to go from 4 to 8 in little over a year and a half to begin with. So I would guestimate the graduation from 8 to 16 will be in less time than it was from 4 to 8. So i would say that would not be a leveling off.Software developers will need to re-train or hire new software engineers who know how to take advantage of multi-core architecture.Well I'm still into the idea that multi-tasking can be just as big a driver of the need for more cores as multi-threaded within each. So I'm not sure we need to wait for software developers to "catch up". I know I'm not alone when I say I could use 16 cores in a Mac Pro right now with the existing base of software that already exists.The big question for those who must have the newest, most powerful system will be how much RAM they'll need to take advantage of the new architecture.I know that the primary applications I could use all this power for do not use much ram at all. So this specification may vary a lot among users.There are quite a few audio/video production professionals wondering how all this
will help to improve their workflow capabilties.Wondering? I'm pretty sure most are not wondering - more like eagerly anticipating due to KNOWING it will improve workflow tremendously.
become mainstream.Mainstream? I doubt any 8+ core users will be mainstream outside of commercial use.The next goal will be production refinements like 45 nm production for greater energy efficiency.I'll be surprised if that won't lead to a 16-core offering about a year from now or next winter 2008 at the latest. We are about to go from 4 to 8 in little over a year and a half to begin with. So I would guestimate the graduation from 8 to 16 will be in less time than it was from 4 to 8. So i would say that would not be a leveling off.Software developers will need to re-train or hire new software engineers who know how to take advantage of multi-core architecture.Well I'm still into the idea that multi-tasking can be just as big a driver of the need for more cores as multi-threaded within each. So I'm not sure we need to wait for software developers to "catch up". I know I'm not alone when I say I could use 16 cores in a Mac Pro right now with the existing base of software that already exists.The big question for those who must have the newest, most powerful system will be how much RAM they'll need to take advantage of the new architecture.I know that the primary applications I could use all this power for do not use much ram at all. So this specification may vary a lot among users.There are quite a few audio/video production professionals wondering how all this
will help to improve their workflow capabilties.Wondering? I'm pretty sure most are not wondering - more like eagerly anticipating due to KNOWING it will improve workflow tremendously.
wheezy
Nov 15, 06:37 PM
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
What a very lovely analogy. Thank you.
For me... 8 cores for the bragging rights only... so I guess I won't get one anytime soon. I'm sure 4 would suit me fine though, I need to upgrade my 1Ghz G4!!!
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
What a very lovely analogy. Thank you.
For me... 8 cores for the bragging rights only... so I guess I won't get one anytime soon. I'm sure 4 would suit me fine though, I need to upgrade my 1Ghz G4!!!
Rodimus Prime
Feb 24, 01:07 AM
Because it's more crude. The carbon is sapped out through a refining process, meaning all that crap sucked out of the earth still ends up somewhere it's not supposed to be -- meaning diesel is just as carbon neutral as gasoline.
well you have to remember they use nearly ever part of the oil. It would get used for something else instead of diesel.
Diesel over problem compared to Unlead is it has a much dirtier burning process and not much they can do to fix that problem. Unleaded advatage is the fuel and air are evenly mix when makes for a much cleaner burn. Diesel that can not be done.
There are idea on how to mix the 2 techs were the air would be evenly mix like unleaded but inginited under compression. That would give a huge boost in return but the problem you run into is it is a very fine range that works and we can not make the timing and everything that dead on easily. Plus ramping up RPM is a lot harder.
That is the problem with Diesel vs gas is people get wrap up in the MPG but forget that diesel engery per unit volume is much greater. Diesel biggest boost comes from how we ingited it.
well you have to remember they use nearly ever part of the oil. It would get used for something else instead of diesel.
Diesel over problem compared to Unlead is it has a much dirtier burning process and not much they can do to fix that problem. Unleaded advatage is the fuel and air are evenly mix when makes for a much cleaner burn. Diesel that can not be done.
There are idea on how to mix the 2 techs were the air would be evenly mix like unleaded but inginited under compression. That would give a huge boost in return but the problem you run into is it is a very fine range that works and we can not make the timing and everything that dead on easily. Plus ramping up RPM is a lot harder.
That is the problem with Diesel vs gas is people get wrap up in the MPG but forget that diesel engery per unit volume is much greater. Diesel biggest boost comes from how we ingited it.
DaveN
Apr 19, 09:36 PM
This would be nice:
1) Sandy Bridge of course
2) Decent graphics
3) Large hard drive plus option for laptop size SSD port easily accessible via a door on the bottom of the iMac. Having a SSD build option is nice but this way you also can easily upgrade RAM and SSD easily as time goes on. That way you can have a TB hard drive as a base and then add more storage as desired and as the price drops.
Bottom line is that the new iMac would be killer fast and user upgradable for great value.
1) Sandy Bridge of course
2) Decent graphics
3) Large hard drive plus option for laptop size SSD port easily accessible via a door on the bottom of the iMac. Having a SSD build option is nice but this way you also can easily upgrade RAM and SSD easily as time goes on. That way you can have a TB hard drive as a base and then add more storage as desired and as the price drops.
Bottom line is that the new iMac would be killer fast and user upgradable for great value.
KnightWRX
Apr 26, 01:42 PM
Lame
1. Pet Store was trademarked in one form or another.
2. Trying to argue that "App" was as much part of the lexicon as "pet" is ridiculous.
Objection overruled.
1. Look, the form in which it was trademarked matters. Otherwise, there would only be 1 type of mark. You can overrule it all you want, in the end you were wrong.
2. App is as much a part of the lexicon as pet. I know I've been using it for more than a decade.
1. Pet Store was trademarked in one form or another.
2. Trying to argue that "App" was as much part of the lexicon as "pet" is ridiculous.
Objection overruled.
1. Look, the form in which it was trademarked matters. Otherwise, there would only be 1 type of mark. You can overrule it all you want, in the end you were wrong.
2. App is as much a part of the lexicon as pet. I know I've been using it for more than a decade.
63dot
Jan 5, 11:21 AM
To the BMW guys, how reliable is the E46 325i?
I have a chance to pick one up for a fairly low cost (Less than $6,000 canadian). It is pretty much mint and VERY well maintained.
Car has a bit higher miles (~125,000 miles/ 205,000km), but I am guessing well maintained they will last quite a while?
I really enjoyed my brothers E36, and I just got rid of my project cars so I figure this would be a nice change.
There isn't much out there after the legendary 2002 that has longevity attached to it. Speed, safety, handling, yes all of that, but I am with the rest of the crew on newer BMWs with miles on it.
It's a hard car to pass up if only performance and looks counted, but like Mercedes and Volvos after the 1970s and early 1980s in some cases, you are dealing with repairs all the time.
The last tough Mercedes may have been around 1980 and the Volvos kept up a long lasting car sometime later into that decade.
These days, outside of some 1990s Honda Accords/Civics, it's hard to bet on any car having an unusual amount of longevity attached to it. I wouldn't be surprised if newer Hondas are now built to crap out 10 to 15 years down the line but we won't know in another 10 to 15 years.
The best thing to do is to look at what 20 year old cars are out there. You can get a good deal on them, and they lasted that long for a reason. I am very skeptical of 1990s used cars since many makers went offshore for their production, as well as making things a lot cheaper on the inside and outside of the vehicle.
American cars, as we all know, were the first to build in obsolescence into its overall recipe. How many original late-1970s and later US cars are at shows that haven't had a ton of extra work done to them to simply make them run? Gone are the days of the '57 Chevy and '65 Mustang, many of which are still in shows and on the road.
I have a chance to pick one up for a fairly low cost (Less than $6,000 canadian). It is pretty much mint and VERY well maintained.
Car has a bit higher miles (~125,000 miles/ 205,000km), but I am guessing well maintained they will last quite a while?
I really enjoyed my brothers E36, and I just got rid of my project cars so I figure this would be a nice change.
There isn't much out there after the legendary 2002 that has longevity attached to it. Speed, safety, handling, yes all of that, but I am with the rest of the crew on newer BMWs with miles on it.
It's a hard car to pass up if only performance and looks counted, but like Mercedes and Volvos after the 1970s and early 1980s in some cases, you are dealing with repairs all the time.
The last tough Mercedes may have been around 1980 and the Volvos kept up a long lasting car sometime later into that decade.
These days, outside of some 1990s Honda Accords/Civics, it's hard to bet on any car having an unusual amount of longevity attached to it. I wouldn't be surprised if newer Hondas are now built to crap out 10 to 15 years down the line but we won't know in another 10 to 15 years.
The best thing to do is to look at what 20 year old cars are out there. You can get a good deal on them, and they lasted that long for a reason. I am very skeptical of 1990s used cars since many makers went offshore for their production, as well as making things a lot cheaper on the inside and outside of the vehicle.
American cars, as we all know, were the first to build in obsolescence into its overall recipe. How many original late-1970s and later US cars are at shows that haven't had a ton of extra work done to them to simply make them run? Gone are the days of the '57 Chevy and '65 Mustang, many of which are still in shows and on the road.
iSee
Oct 23, 11:17 AM
Hey, if there's a rumor every single week that upgraded macbooks/mbps, it will eventually be true! :D :D :D
When it finally does come true, MR will announce it snidely: "Apple announces upgraded notebooks today, as predicted..." and link back to the one rumor (of dozens, I think) that was accurate.
When it finally does come true, MR will announce it snidely: "Apple announces upgraded notebooks today, as predicted..." and link back to the one rumor (of dozens, I think) that was accurate.
Unspeaked
Sep 1, 02:05 PM
How big and small an iMac would consumers actually want? 50"? 10"?
Will we eventually see an ad with Verne Troyer and Yao Ming working side-by-side on their big and small desktop Macintoshes?
I'd take a 72" iMac.
Like some said earlier, anything above 23"s would be prfect as a TV replacement.
You have the remote, the wi-fi, the DVD (possibly Blu Ray) player - who wouldn't want a 72" LCD TV that does all THAT and can also be used as a computer??
Will we eventually see an ad with Verne Troyer and Yao Ming working side-by-side on their big and small desktop Macintoshes?
I'd take a 72" iMac.
Like some said earlier, anything above 23"s would be prfect as a TV replacement.
You have the remote, the wi-fi, the DVD (possibly Blu Ray) player - who wouldn't want a 72" LCD TV that does all THAT and can also be used as a computer??
w00master
Dec 30, 10:11 AM
I think a lot of you are expecting way too much on the "iTV" and will be very disappointed when it gets released.
1. DVR Functionality?
Nope, I don't see it. Don't see it happening EVER. This places iTV in direct competition with Cable and Satellite providers, which (imho) is a losing battle. A good example is Tivo. While, Tivo is still lauded in the industry and consumers as having the "best DVR interface/UI," it's still not selling well to consumers. Why? Cable and Satellite providers are providing DVRs and a MUCH lower cost, and even though their UI/interface sucks terribly, because of the LOW COST, the Cable/Satellite boxes are outselling Tivos.
On Demand. This category amongst cable companies are expanding very rapidly and offering free content left and right. Good example is HBO, nearly *ALL* of their shows are On Demand now which is instant access to all of their shows. Generally speaking (for people who use HBO On Demand), this has been extremely popular, maybe this is why HBO is still not being sold on iTunes? Why download when you have access to nearly all of the HBO content for free and instantaneous?
2. Remote Desktop viewer?
Nope, don't see this at all either. If this were a Mac world only, MAYBE I could see this happening, but the harsh reality is that we live in a primarily Windows world. I really don't see Apple moving into utilizing Remote Desktop on Windows machines THROUGH iTV.
You have to remember that unlike iMac, Mac Pro, Macbooks, etc, the iTV will have to satisfy Windows users as well.
What do I see the iTV for? Streaming media, a glorified IP TV box, an easier way to bring the iPod to the living room. I really don't see it doing anything else. I'm hoping that I'm wrong.
w00master
1. DVR Functionality?
Nope, I don't see it. Don't see it happening EVER. This places iTV in direct competition with Cable and Satellite providers, which (imho) is a losing battle. A good example is Tivo. While, Tivo is still lauded in the industry and consumers as having the "best DVR interface/UI," it's still not selling well to consumers. Why? Cable and Satellite providers are providing DVRs and a MUCH lower cost, and even though their UI/interface sucks terribly, because of the LOW COST, the Cable/Satellite boxes are outselling Tivos.
On Demand. This category amongst cable companies are expanding very rapidly and offering free content left and right. Good example is HBO, nearly *ALL* of their shows are On Demand now which is instant access to all of their shows. Generally speaking (for people who use HBO On Demand), this has been extremely popular, maybe this is why HBO is still not being sold on iTunes? Why download when you have access to nearly all of the HBO content for free and instantaneous?
2. Remote Desktop viewer?
Nope, don't see this at all either. If this were a Mac world only, MAYBE I could see this happening, but the harsh reality is that we live in a primarily Windows world. I really don't see Apple moving into utilizing Remote Desktop on Windows machines THROUGH iTV.
You have to remember that unlike iMac, Mac Pro, Macbooks, etc, the iTV will have to satisfy Windows users as well.
What do I see the iTV for? Streaming media, a glorified IP TV box, an easier way to bring the iPod to the living room. I really don't see it doing anything else. I'm hoping that I'm wrong.
w00master
Ping Guo
Jun 23, 03:01 AM
Apple made a device for these people - the iPad.
For a desktop, errr, what is the advantage over a mouse? A mouse is more precise and far more comfortable to use as your arm is resting on a horizontal surface. Imagine swiping all over a 27" iMac screen for hours. Neck and shoulder pain anyone?
Touchscreen smartphones: Ideal
Touchscreen tablets/netbooks: Has advantages
Touchscreen desktops: No benefit
We're very used to using a mouse, but it's definitely not the most natural way to interact with a computer. It's not easy either. I've seen old people that never could figure out how to double click without moving the cursor 50 pixels from where they wanted to click.
For a desktop, errr, what is the advantage over a mouse? A mouse is more precise and far more comfortable to use as your arm is resting on a horizontal surface. Imagine swiping all over a 27" iMac screen for hours. Neck and shoulder pain anyone?
Touchscreen smartphones: Ideal
Touchscreen tablets/netbooks: Has advantages
Touchscreen desktops: No benefit
We're very used to using a mouse, but it's definitely not the most natural way to interact with a computer. It's not easy either. I've seen old people that never could figure out how to double click without moving the cursor 50 pixels from where they wanted to click.
dr Dunkel
Apr 21, 09:19 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
I guess the "pro" in the notebook world weighs a little less than in the world of racing :-)
I guess the "pro" in the notebook world weighs a little less than in the world of racing :-)
Lollypop
Jul 20, 03:33 AM
Gah. The Linux community doesn't want to unify. In fact, not unifying is the core of their philosophy. The vast majority of Linux users (ie, non-n00bs) don't really give a crap about mass adoption of Linux. Many even view such a possibility with horror and disgust. The only priority is choice. It's why there are 415 distributions (none of which are compatible with each other), 9,843 window managers (none of which have remotely similar configuration options), and 3.43x10^15 terminal emulators (none of which actually emulate terminals any better or worse than any other one).
Waving the "king of the OS hill" prize in front of a bunch of Linux users/developers will only result in them staring at you like a dog that's been shown a card trick. With very few exceptions, only n00bs (and uncomprehending businessmen who think they can somehow profit) want mass adoption of Linux.
This is a very true statement! With all the different features of the different distributions there will never be a singular Linux out there. People dont want to download the source and compile it, even the best package managers dont really solve the problem, I want to download any application and run it, I dont want to have something check dependancies and then get teh appropriate version ect. The newest Suse enterprise desktop has a lot of Mac os like features, and claim to have done a lot of research into user interface optomization ect, but thats only Suse, what about the rest, Linux will never have a singular unified front, and that is its achilees heel, and the macs inherant strenght (ok so the mac isnt that unified anymore)
I hope apple continues the trends they showed this quater, more and more people need to exposed to the mac, and more and more people will switch.
Waving the "king of the OS hill" prize in front of a bunch of Linux users/developers will only result in them staring at you like a dog that's been shown a card trick. With very few exceptions, only n00bs (and uncomprehending businessmen who think they can somehow profit) want mass adoption of Linux.
This is a very true statement! With all the different features of the different distributions there will never be a singular Linux out there. People dont want to download the source and compile it, even the best package managers dont really solve the problem, I want to download any application and run it, I dont want to have something check dependancies and then get teh appropriate version ect. The newest Suse enterprise desktop has a lot of Mac os like features, and claim to have done a lot of research into user interface optomization ect, but thats only Suse, what about the rest, Linux will never have a singular unified front, and that is its achilees heel, and the macs inherant strenght (ok so the mac isnt that unified anymore)
I hope apple continues the trends they showed this quater, more and more people need to exposed to the mac, and more and more people will switch.
quadgirl
Sep 1, 03:32 PM
I disagree.
Merom makes more sense. Yes, they did get a G5 inside of the iMac, BUT, it was known for serious reliability problems. Overheating, blown capacitors, etc. The G5 iMac was really a poor design because it could *never* handle that much heat.
So, if they are going to use Merom, great. It's a small case, it doesn't have big fans (like the Mac Pro), I would rather have a cool (not hot) case with quiet fans as well as a reliable machine.
We can always hope for a Conroe mini-Mac Pro, but it will probably never happen.
The G5 is an insanely hot processor (along the lines of the Pentium 4 netburst cpus) and Apple should have a medal for making it work. Conroes are cool, really cool, so it can be done.
Maybe Apple's priority is to keep the iMac silent and as slim as possible (beauty before power). The problem is that the Merom maxes out at 2.33 ghz and the Macbook Pro 17" may well end up with that processor. It doesn't make sense to keep a consumer desktop at the same speed of the pro laptop. But then again, neither does it make sense putting a laptop processor in a desktop, unless a slim/quiet design is Apple's priority.
Merom makes more sense. Yes, they did get a G5 inside of the iMac, BUT, it was known for serious reliability problems. Overheating, blown capacitors, etc. The G5 iMac was really a poor design because it could *never* handle that much heat.
So, if they are going to use Merom, great. It's a small case, it doesn't have big fans (like the Mac Pro), I would rather have a cool (not hot) case with quiet fans as well as a reliable machine.
We can always hope for a Conroe mini-Mac Pro, but it will probably never happen.
The G5 is an insanely hot processor (along the lines of the Pentium 4 netburst cpus) and Apple should have a medal for making it work. Conroes are cool, really cool, so it can be done.
Maybe Apple's priority is to keep the iMac silent and as slim as possible (beauty before power). The problem is that the Merom maxes out at 2.33 ghz and the Macbook Pro 17" may well end up with that processor. It doesn't make sense to keep a consumer desktop at the same speed of the pro laptop. But then again, neither does it make sense putting a laptop processor in a desktop, unless a slim/quiet design is Apple's priority.
KnightWRX
May 2, 06:04 PM
LOL! Yeah... and I remember crashing faster than you click your mouse on those systems. Windows 3.0 and 3.1 were a mess. But of course... most things were back then. how far we've come.
Uh ? You say the crashing is somehow related to pre-emptive multi-tasking and yet you talk about Windows 3.0 and 3.1 which had... cooperative multi-tasking ? :confused:
I was talking about Unix systems on 386s (think BSD, think SCO UnixWare, think early Linux). Those had true pre-emptive multi-tasking and they didn't "crash faster than you click your mouse". (heck, my first DOS computer had no mouse and I don't think it ever crashed).
Crashing has nothing to do with the type of multi-tasking.
I think what he is saying is that programs that are actually doing work in the background can continue running, while those that aren't can suspend iOS style. That is how Lion works. It brings the benefits of both iOS & Mac OS.
What's working ? Is a program that's sitting in its idle loop waiting on a listen() operation not working ? Is a program that's firing a heartbeat every X seconds not working ?
Are we that ressource limited that we need to suspend these programs and have system level services to do these tasks, which the programs will register with on launch ? What's the benefit of a system level service vs the program doing it itself ?
Let's face it, it's not like a program sitting in the background is digging into the CPU much with a idle loop...
Uh ? You say the crashing is somehow related to pre-emptive multi-tasking and yet you talk about Windows 3.0 and 3.1 which had... cooperative multi-tasking ? :confused:
I was talking about Unix systems on 386s (think BSD, think SCO UnixWare, think early Linux). Those had true pre-emptive multi-tasking and they didn't "crash faster than you click your mouse". (heck, my first DOS computer had no mouse and I don't think it ever crashed).
Crashing has nothing to do with the type of multi-tasking.
I think what he is saying is that programs that are actually doing work in the background can continue running, while those that aren't can suspend iOS style. That is how Lion works. It brings the benefits of both iOS & Mac OS.
What's working ? Is a program that's sitting in its idle loop waiting on a listen() operation not working ? Is a program that's firing a heartbeat every X seconds not working ?
Are we that ressource limited that we need to suspend these programs and have system level services to do these tasks, which the programs will register with on launch ? What's the benefit of a system level service vs the program doing it itself ?
Let's face it, it's not like a program sitting in the background is digging into the CPU much with a idle loop...
Eidorian
Jan 11, 04:53 PM
What does this mean for the regular MacBook then? Is it going to be another model or a replacement?
gkuhn
Feb 24, 05:45 AM
To be honest it may be more that those in Europe aren't looking for pure horse power as we seem to be wanting here in the US...living very well with the power of my "base" 4 banger 2003 Subaru Baja...
We don't have big blocks here in Germany. Compared to a gasoline engine, driving a diesel engine is much more fun (due to higher torque). More than 70% of BMW 7-series and Audi A8 are sold with a diesel engine. Even Porsche is offering diesel as an option for the Panamera.
Diesel engine is a nice combination of driving fun and fuel saving.
We don't have big blocks here in Germany. Compared to a gasoline engine, driving a diesel engine is much more fun (due to higher torque). More than 70% of BMW 7-series and Audi A8 are sold with a diesel engine. Even Porsche is offering diesel as an option for the Panamera.
Diesel engine is a nice combination of driving fun and fuel saving.
0 comments:
Post a Comment