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.
AvSRoCkCO1067
Aug 16, 04:19 PM
iPods were pretty popular and quite a money maker when only US customers could get them and, later, when only US customers could buy online if memory serves...
As are the iTunes Television Offerings...
As are the iTunes Television Offerings...
Mac'Mo
Jan 1, 10:46 PM
i thought the iPhone rumor was laid to rest?
macFanDave
Jul 18, 12:23 PM
WWDC is about "developers, developers, developers, developers!"
What I have heard about Leopard and the Mac Pro is so exciting, I don't want to see them upstaged by iPod/iTMS movies news. I haven't even seen much on the Intel version of Xserves, so I can expect that I might see some news on that issue.
I hope to hear the iPod and iTMS news, but at a different venue.
What I have heard about Leopard and the Mac Pro is so exciting, I don't want to see them upstaged by iPod/iTMS movies news. I haven't even seen much on the Intel version of Xserves, so I can expect that I might see some news on that issue.
I hope to hear the iPod and iTMS news, but at a different venue.
tvguru
Aug 7, 05:12 AM
US Store, 17" MBP (no taxes): AUD$3655
AU Store, 17" MBP (no GST): AUD$3999
CAN Store, 17" MBP (no taxes): AUD$3591
You have to add sales tax to the US and Canadian prices as they are not only aren't displayed in the price but the taxes differ from state to state/province to province. Aussie GST is quoted in the price and is that same across the country so a 17" MBP costs exactly the same in every state.
The difference is about $400 which is pretty big but we're not a big market, thus selling to us costs more as the size of the market can't make up for the increased cost of getting the products to us.
We also make more money, I remember a while ago doing a comparison between a waiter on Aussie award wages and US minimum wage in the purchase of an iBook. The US waiter would have to work ~2x as many hours as the aussie waiter to afford an iBook at our respective online Apple Stores.
Thanks for that, I forgot that the prices always tax included. This makes a lot more sense now.
Edit: Grammar
AU Store, 17" MBP (no GST): AUD$3999
CAN Store, 17" MBP (no taxes): AUD$3591
You have to add sales tax to the US and Canadian prices as they are not only aren't displayed in the price but the taxes differ from state to state/province to province. Aussie GST is quoted in the price and is that same across the country so a 17" MBP costs exactly the same in every state.
The difference is about $400 which is pretty big but we're not a big market, thus selling to us costs more as the size of the market can't make up for the increased cost of getting the products to us.
We also make more money, I remember a while ago doing a comparison between a waiter on Aussie award wages and US minimum wage in the purchase of an iBook. The US waiter would have to work ~2x as many hours as the aussie waiter to afford an iBook at our respective online Apple Stores.
Thanks for that, I forgot that the prices always tax included. This makes a lot more sense now.
Edit: Grammar
princealfie
Nov 28, 02:10 PM
I got a brown one. Not too shabby. Of course, I can't wait for the shuffle too :)
IbisDoc
Mar 25, 05:50 PM
Most of the naysayers believe that tilting and touch-screen gaming is for sissies. They want actual analog controllers and such. They'll never change that attitude because they what they were raised on. The younger, current group of gamers will find that tilt & touch is very natural for them so they won't be as prone to griping that the past is slowly fading away.
I like racing games a lot and this one looks terrific. Apple needs to build a game console with two iPad2 chips in it or one quad-core ARM processor. That would make one fine low-cost system with more games than you could possibly want available. Apple would just have to work out some touch & tilt controllers for it.
Touchscreen gaming requires you to LOOK AT THE TOUCHSCREEN. This works if the game is ON THE TOUCHSCREEN (for example, the iPad). This doesn't work if the game is on a different screen (for example, the TV). In touchscreen gaming, the concept is that you are watching the action on the screen that you are touching, not on a different screen 6-8 feet away.
In what way is that a dinosaur concept?
This will have limited usefulness, mainly tilting games. Or maybe a dumb game where you just need to smack the screen to whack a mole or something.
I like racing games a lot and this one looks terrific. Apple needs to build a game console with two iPad2 chips in it or one quad-core ARM processor. That would make one fine low-cost system with more games than you could possibly want available. Apple would just have to work out some touch & tilt controllers for it.
Touchscreen gaming requires you to LOOK AT THE TOUCHSCREEN. This works if the game is ON THE TOUCHSCREEN (for example, the iPad). This doesn't work if the game is on a different screen (for example, the TV). In touchscreen gaming, the concept is that you are watching the action on the screen that you are touching, not on a different screen 6-8 feet away.
In what way is that a dinosaur concept?
This will have limited usefulness, mainly tilting games. Or maybe a dumb game where you just need to smack the screen to whack a mole or something.
Spoony
Apr 26, 02:02 PM
Also i've never had a Mac.
Does apple use the term "applications" for their software as opposed to "programs" like windows.
If that is the case all Apple is doing is shortening their Mac name Applications to App. Everyone else is just copying them.
Everyone else can call them programs and lets call it a day.
Does apple use the term "applications" for their software as opposed to "programs" like windows.
If that is the case all Apple is doing is shortening their Mac name Applications to App. Everyone else is just copying them.
Everyone else can call them programs and lets call it a day.
jwp1964
Sep 7, 09:09 AM
A good idea, just poorly executed.
Actually makes more sense than the system we have now.
Just where would you prefer to live? Make a choice from the list below:
USA, England, Austalia, New Zealand, Germany, Japan, Korea (South) most other EU members OR
China, Cuba, Russia, North Korea.
You've got to be kidding me, unless you actually believe we should all be equally miserable.:p
Actually makes more sense than the system we have now.
Just where would you prefer to live? Make a choice from the list below:
USA, England, Austalia, New Zealand, Germany, Japan, Korea (South) most other EU members OR
China, Cuba, Russia, North Korea.
You've got to be kidding me, unless you actually believe we should all be equally miserable.:p
mckvakk
Feb 24, 04:54 PM
My rather cramped set up.
I will buy a new, twice as wide desk as soon as i can get someone to help me transport it from IKEA:p
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2459671/IMG_1089.png
I will buy a new, twice as wide desk as soon as i can get someone to help me transport it from IKEA:p
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2459671/IMG_1089.png
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
macfan881
Aug 24, 06:13 PM
i hope theres a new mac mini soon id plan to get one but i plan to put boot camp on and play my matrix online and i pray this version does not have shared graphics cause for my game it is herendus playin the game
Trauma1
Apr 20, 11:43 PM
When I don't see hipsters, students, and soccer moms using Macbook "Pros" at Starbucks, then I'll believe that it's a "Pro" model
Performance and specifications determine whether or not it's a "Pro", not the people who use them. I'm not a professional race car driver, but my car has over 400hp. Does that mean that my car is not the high-performance sports car that the automotive world widely claims it to be?
And besides, how do you know those people aren't using heavy-duty applications? Is a thirty-second observation at Starbucks enough to justify such a statement?
Performance and specifications determine whether or not it's a "Pro", not the people who use them. I'm not a professional race car driver, but my car has over 400hp. Does that mean that my car is not the high-performance sports car that the automotive world widely claims it to be?
And besides, how do you know those people aren't using heavy-duty applications? Is a thirty-second observation at Starbucks enough to justify such a statement?
rxse7en
Nov 29, 03:25 PM
Ws there any mention of iTV's HD capabilities?
poppe
Jul 14, 12:31 PM
DVC-PRO is a Panasonic created format.
-Terry
Oops... I stand Corrected...
-Terry
Oops... I stand Corrected...
Mobster Sauce
Apr 2, 07:08 PM
Nicely done.
MacLuvin
Apr 6, 11:18 AM
I am using a late 2010 MBP, i5, 8GB RAM and I have no lagging issues with launchpad other than a slight delay opening folders. I don't use it much so it is not a noticible issue for me. Apps scroll quickly and I am able to page left or right seamlessly.
So when you click on the Launchpad icon everything comes up smooth and no delay/lag or doesn't act sluggish? just the opening of folders ?
There's lag for me launching launchpad and also scrolling through its pages and going/creating folders. However I do believe this will be fixed later on as it can't be that demanding to run OSX LION
So when you click on the Launchpad icon everything comes up smooth and no delay/lag or doesn't act sluggish? just the opening of folders ?
There's lag for me launching launchpad and also scrolling through its pages and going/creating folders. However I do believe this will be fixed later on as it can't be that demanding to run OSX LION
coder12
Apr 21, 12:20 PM
Good catch! I just noticed this once you pointed it out.
I will be having fun with this +1 deally...
I will be having fun with this +1 deally...
itsmeGAV
Jan 7, 10:07 AM
I was spending a hell of a lot of money a week on petrol, so it's possibly the best move I've ever made in all honesty! I will eventually buy a Mk4 R32 for show purposes only!
twoodcc
Mar 28, 12:03 AM
I just realized that mc68k hasn't had any points since the 14th of March, hope he hasn't gotten in trouble for folding on company machines...
yeah i noticed that also. i hope he's able to fold again soon
I have it all back together now and hope to ride it tomorrow, weather permitting. The paint chip didn't look like this, but I love it! The original silver frame and pipes contrast nicely.
nice!
yeah i noticed that also. i hope he's able to fold again soon
I have it all back together now and hope to ride it tomorrow, weather permitting. The paint chip didn't look like this, but I love it! The original silver frame and pipes contrast nicely.
nice!
CalBoy
Mar 21, 12:32 AM
There are homeopathic apps in the AppStore. Those won't work any better than this 'pray the gay away' app, but they still are allowed in the store.
Then I think Apple might be exposed to the same potential liabilities for homeopathic remedies too. Mind you I don't think (or know definitely) anyone has successfully maintained that companies that knowingly permit the propagation of dangerous materials should be held liable. I do, however, think that it would be a fair standard to apply if the company is going to trumpet it's own "protective" prowess.
Apple is being inconsistent with its policies on the App Store. Either any offensive or potentially dangerous app should be barred, or none of them should be. By trying to play the part of the micromanager, Apple is revealing its own limitations.
No-one could possibly be offended by homeopathy.
I disagree. The level of offense might be lower than this gay-be-gone app, but I'm sure many physicians, nurses, and skeptics are not too fond of junk science being spread.
Moreover, it isn't just about what offends; that is merely a measuring stick to figure out what Apple's priorities are. I'm sure there is an app to offend everyone in the app store (does the Auduban Society approve of Angry Birds?). The question is which of these apps represents a real problem for users? As much as I disagree with Jobs about porn in the app store, there is at least some minimal possibility of utility in leaving porn out of the app store in that parents will be better able to decide what their kids download (not that there aren't other means of doing so, or that the kids haven't already seen porn). Sure it isn't a fantastic reason, but at least there's plausibility.
I think something similar can be said for this gay-be-gone app or a homeopathic app. In these situations the dangers from app use are not only higher, but they also run contrary to what medical professionals the world over recommend. If Apple is so willing to ban something for its plausible dangers, why not ban something for its very real dangers?
I think that should be a more important metric over offense. An app that is offensive but which doesn't hurt anyone either directly on indirectly should be scrutinized much less than one that does. In this light, it becomes more clear that what Apple really wanted to do all along was keep porn out of the App Store. Not because it's offensive or dangerous, but because it would make their devices easier to sell even in the most conservative of markets.
Then I think Apple might be exposed to the same potential liabilities for homeopathic remedies too. Mind you I don't think (or know definitely) anyone has successfully maintained that companies that knowingly permit the propagation of dangerous materials should be held liable. I do, however, think that it would be a fair standard to apply if the company is going to trumpet it's own "protective" prowess.
Apple is being inconsistent with its policies on the App Store. Either any offensive or potentially dangerous app should be barred, or none of them should be. By trying to play the part of the micromanager, Apple is revealing its own limitations.
No-one could possibly be offended by homeopathy.
I disagree. The level of offense might be lower than this gay-be-gone app, but I'm sure many physicians, nurses, and skeptics are not too fond of junk science being spread.
Moreover, it isn't just about what offends; that is merely a measuring stick to figure out what Apple's priorities are. I'm sure there is an app to offend everyone in the app store (does the Auduban Society approve of Angry Birds?). The question is which of these apps represents a real problem for users? As much as I disagree with Jobs about porn in the app store, there is at least some minimal possibility of utility in leaving porn out of the app store in that parents will be better able to decide what their kids download (not that there aren't other means of doing so, or that the kids haven't already seen porn). Sure it isn't a fantastic reason, but at least there's plausibility.
I think something similar can be said for this gay-be-gone app or a homeopathic app. In these situations the dangers from app use are not only higher, but they also run contrary to what medical professionals the world over recommend. If Apple is so willing to ban something for its plausible dangers, why not ban something for its very real dangers?
I think that should be a more important metric over offense. An app that is offensive but which doesn't hurt anyone either directly on indirectly should be scrutinized much less than one that does. In this light, it becomes more clear that what Apple really wanted to do all along was keep porn out of the App Store. Not because it's offensive or dangerous, but because it would make their devices easier to sell even in the most conservative of markets.
MacPhilosopher
Sep 14, 12:08 PM
Toyota fixes all vehicles because they all have the potential to have dangerous problems.
Most iPhone owners have no problem whatsoever, and there's no danger at all to anyone.
So Toyota HAS to fix them all. It would be pointless for Apple to fix all iPhones in the field when most of them never have an issue needing a fix. But if you do have a problem, let them know and they will fix it for you for free. That's hardly a burden for such a non-dangerous situation.
We live in this ridiculous era of expectations. Apple comes out with a reasonable solution to a problem that affects a tiny percentage of users, and they get slammed for it. Hypocrisy.
Not to mention, there have been three or fewer known stuck accelerators in Toyotas out of millions of cars. I cannot imagine that there are at least that many for every manufacturer. This was a media fail for both Apple and Toyota, not a product fail.
Most iPhone owners have no problem whatsoever, and there's no danger at all to anyone.
So Toyota HAS to fix them all. It would be pointless for Apple to fix all iPhones in the field when most of them never have an issue needing a fix. But if you do have a problem, let them know and they will fix it for you for free. That's hardly a burden for such a non-dangerous situation.
We live in this ridiculous era of expectations. Apple comes out with a reasonable solution to a problem that affects a tiny percentage of users, and they get slammed for it. Hypocrisy.
Not to mention, there have been three or fewer known stuck accelerators in Toyotas out of millions of cars. I cannot imagine that there are at least that many for every manufacturer. This was a media fail for both Apple and Toyota, not a product fail.
twoodcc
Dec 13, 11:31 AM
congrats to whiterabbit for 4 million points!
iJohnHenry
Apr 10, 11:15 AM
I've obviously never tried any of the fancy auto shifting modern cars.
My KIA has selectronic shifting, and it's fun to go "over there", now and then. ;)
My KIA has selectronic shifting, and it's fun to go "over there", now and then. ;)
0 Yorumlar