phatpat88
Jul 15, 12:43 AM
So excited... How come no FW800 infront? thats a little crazy no?
Right now the only device I use for FW800 are Hard drives... I would rather have a 2nd USB 2.0 in front than the 800
Right now the only device I use for FW800 are Hard drives... I would rather have a 2nd USB 2.0 in front than the 800
kresh
Nov 28, 10:47 PM
If this went into effect, I would have a defense in court when I downloaded the entire Universal Label Catalog (All Their Music) off the net. I would no longer buy anything from iTS that is Universal!
Wow, is the Music label the same as the Movie label. I could get all the movies too (to play on my iPod)!
I mean if the royalties are paid when the device is manufactured, there is no need for them to double dip and collect royalties again when I pay for content right? I think it would hold in court!
Wow, is the Music label the same as the Movie label. I could get all the movies too (to play on my iPod)!
I mean if the royalties are paid when the device is manufactured, there is no need for them to double dip and collect royalties again when I pay for content right? I think it would hold in court!
Mr. Retrofire
Mar 26, 09:22 PM
It's crap that is no longer needed.
It sounds like you speak about your own posts.
You are in a progress trap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_trap), kid. It feels good that you are not responsible for the use of nuclear weapons. I'm sure you would use them, if you could kill "Rosetta" with them.
Stuff that can be cut out but isn't, holds back progress.
Your logic is flawed, because Rosetta is already "cut out" in SL. It is a separate option, if you know what that means. No? Now explain, how you cut something out, which is already cut out.
Progress = cutting and more cutting and then perfecting what's left over.
*lol*
It is important to note, that Apples success and progress in emerging markets in the past 10 years is associated with iTunes (it is necessary to access your iDevices), and the iTunes success is based on your biggest foe: The Carbon API. Or in other words: Apple would not be as big as it is, if Carbon and iTunes did not exist in the past. Strange that you must see now, that your enemies are your friends (and you use them daily).
It sounds like you speak about your own posts.
You are in a progress trap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_trap), kid. It feels good that you are not responsible for the use of nuclear weapons. I'm sure you would use them, if you could kill "Rosetta" with them.
Stuff that can be cut out but isn't, holds back progress.
Your logic is flawed, because Rosetta is already "cut out" in SL. It is a separate option, if you know what that means. No? Now explain, how you cut something out, which is already cut out.
Progress = cutting and more cutting and then perfecting what's left over.
*lol*
It is important to note, that Apples success and progress in emerging markets in the past 10 years is associated with iTunes (it is necessary to access your iDevices), and the iTunes success is based on your biggest foe: The Carbon API. Or in other words: Apple would not be as big as it is, if Carbon and iTunes did not exist in the past. Strange that you must see now, that your enemies are your friends (and you use them daily).
ksz
Sep 20, 03:29 AM
What did you expect? Didn't you look at his avatar? Cool, Homer is a member of Macrumors. :D
...except that he's a she...a demi-goddess. Frequent updates are a good thing. I would not want to stop the march of progress just so I could personally feel better about a little money I spent.
...except that he's a she...a demi-goddess. Frequent updates are a good thing. I would not want to stop the march of progress just so I could personally feel better about a little money I spent.
dernhelm
Nov 29, 07:24 AM
Perhaps that lost money isn't due to pirating like the execs want you to think.
Sure it is. Its just that the everyday Joe isn't the pirate, the music distribution executives are. And there's only room for one pirate ship in this industry.
Sure it is. Its just that the everyday Joe isn't the pirate, the music distribution executives are. And there's only room for one pirate ship in this industry.
cherry38
Aug 11, 05:04 PM
You might want to read some reviews on the Chocolate before buying it. I've seen a handful of reviews that were less than favorable.
A good resource is Phonescoop.com. They usually have a decent amount of user reviews upon which you can base your purchasing decisions.
I just bought a chocolate and I absolutely love it. Great battery, great sound, best reception out of any Verizon phone I'd ever had.
The best thing - IT DOESN'T HAVE THE STANDARD VERIZON USER INTERFACE! I really hate how Verizon forces that onto all of their phones now.
I'd say go for it :)
A good resource is Phonescoop.com. They usually have a decent amount of user reviews upon which you can base your purchasing decisions.
I just bought a chocolate and I absolutely love it. Great battery, great sound, best reception out of any Verizon phone I'd ever had.
The best thing - IT DOESN'T HAVE THE STANDARD VERIZON USER INTERFACE! I really hate how Verizon forces that onto all of their phones now.
I'd say go for it :)
daver969
Sep 13, 11:05 AM
A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
What I couldn't understand - I couldn't see it explained in the article - why is the dual core Mac Pro (i.e. with current Mac Pro with 2 cores disabled) faster in so many tests than the 4 core Mac Pro.
I think part of the reason so many people seem to be hung up on the "software doesn't utilize multiple cores" mantra is because benchmarks tend to test only one software component at a time. If a given app isn't multithreaded, then it doesn't benefit from multiple cores in these tests. But that doesn't mean that multiple cores don't affect the overall system speed.
What we need is some kind of a super benchmark: How fast is my computer when I'm watching a quicktime stream of Steve demoing the latest insanely great stuff, while ripping my CD collection to iTunes, while surfing complex Cnet.com pages (w/animation), and compiling the latest version of my Java app, every once in a while flipping over to Dashboard (dashboard seems to take up a lot of system resources every time I invoke it, not just on startup).
At this point I would rather push towards more cores than more raw speed in a single core, since I don't tend to wait on any single process. If something is taking a long time, like loading a page or compiling code, I switch to something else and come back later. I would much rather have the whole system retain its responsive feel than have one app finish its task a few seconds quicker.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
What I couldn't understand - I couldn't see it explained in the article - why is the dual core Mac Pro (i.e. with current Mac Pro with 2 cores disabled) faster in so many tests than the 4 core Mac Pro.
I think part of the reason so many people seem to be hung up on the "software doesn't utilize multiple cores" mantra is because benchmarks tend to test only one software component at a time. If a given app isn't multithreaded, then it doesn't benefit from multiple cores in these tests. But that doesn't mean that multiple cores don't affect the overall system speed.
What we need is some kind of a super benchmark: How fast is my computer when I'm watching a quicktime stream of Steve demoing the latest insanely great stuff, while ripping my CD collection to iTunes, while surfing complex Cnet.com pages (w/animation), and compiling the latest version of my Java app, every once in a while flipping over to Dashboard (dashboard seems to take up a lot of system resources every time I invoke it, not just on startup).
At this point I would rather push towards more cores than more raw speed in a single core, since I don't tend to wait on any single process. If something is taking a long time, like loading a page or compiling code, I switch to something else and come back later. I would much rather have the whole system retain its responsive feel than have one app finish its task a few seconds quicker.
gorgeousninja
Apr 20, 09:40 AM
Don't let a few cherry picked pictures trick you, most Galaxy models don't look at all like an iPhone :
http://www.rogers.com/cms/images/en/Wireless/CellPhoneDetail/Banners/banner01_i896blkr.png
This one can go either way. Of course the Apple biased media are cherry picking their pictures. I'd doubt you'd have a hard time telling both devices apart in the real world with both in front of you.
Especially consdiring the Samsung doesn't use the icon grid on its homescreen at all, contrary to what the pictures are trying to show.
http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Screen-shot-2011-04-19-at-8.37.05-PM.png
feel free to point out how difficult it is to see any similarities...
http://www.rogers.com/cms/images/en/Wireless/CellPhoneDetail/Banners/banner01_i896blkr.png
This one can go either way. Of course the Apple biased media are cherry picking their pictures. I'd doubt you'd have a hard time telling both devices apart in the real world with both in front of you.
Especially consdiring the Samsung doesn't use the icon grid on its homescreen at all, contrary to what the pictures are trying to show.
http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Screen-shot-2011-04-19-at-8.37.05-PM.png
feel free to point out how difficult it is to see any similarities...
RedTomato
Sep 13, 12:36 PM
I read the link above about the ZFS filesystem.
Hmm this could remove a lot of the pain I currently have juggling disks on the cheap.
(I hold a lot of footage of deaf people signing for a project, and don't really have any budget to pay for disk storage. I currently have about 200 GB left on a 1 TB RAID5 system inside a Powermac G3)
It seems the concept of individual volumes will vanish, and instead ZFS creates a common pool of filespace and looks after the checksums etc itself. New drives can just be thrown into the array and ZFS will look after optimising the array I/O.
Mixing 15k rpm speed demon drives with 5400rpm storage hog drives mmmm...
I look forwards to being able to buy a cheap chassis with just a power unit and space for 10 drives, and being able to put that next to my G3, and having ZFS sort out what to do with the 8-9 drives in there.
Something like that hooked up to a Cloverton should give significant HD speedup. Not as much as a ramdisk tho :)
One thing, the article says ZFS can cope with drives being removed from the pool. I'd like to see more detail on that. It surely copes with 1 out of 4 drives failing - what about 3 out of 4? What if 3 x 20GB 15k rpm drives fail and the 1x750GB 5400rpm drive is still up?
Hmm this could remove a lot of the pain I currently have juggling disks on the cheap.
(I hold a lot of footage of deaf people signing for a project, and don't really have any budget to pay for disk storage. I currently have about 200 GB left on a 1 TB RAID5 system inside a Powermac G3)
It seems the concept of individual volumes will vanish, and instead ZFS creates a common pool of filespace and looks after the checksums etc itself. New drives can just be thrown into the array and ZFS will look after optimising the array I/O.
Mixing 15k rpm speed demon drives with 5400rpm storage hog drives mmmm...
I look forwards to being able to buy a cheap chassis with just a power unit and space for 10 drives, and being able to put that next to my G3, and having ZFS sort out what to do with the 8-9 drives in there.
Something like that hooked up to a Cloverton should give significant HD speedup. Not as much as a ramdisk tho :)
One thing, the article says ZFS can cope with drives being removed from the pool. I'd like to see more detail on that. It surely copes with 1 out of 4 drives failing - what about 3 out of 4? What if 3 x 20GB 15k rpm drives fail and the 1x750GB 5400rpm drive is still up?
zap2
Aug 11, 01:19 PM
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.....
Do you really care that much about what people think? If people have something does that really make it "uncool"? Perhaps you should stop care if people like it, hate it , or kill for it, and make up your own option about it based on your likes and dislike about how it looks, works and acts(in this case how bug the software/hardware is)
BUt i'd love to see unlocked phones that can work on all major phone cell companys, they could be price but if they do lots of stuff people will buy it.. it might also be a good idea to release deals with companys(2 year agreements would get it cheaper but you can still buy it unlocked from the Apple store
Do you really care that much about what people think? If people have something does that really make it "uncool"? Perhaps you should stop care if people like it, hate it , or kill for it, and make up your own option about it based on your likes and dislike about how it looks, works and acts(in this case how bug the software/hardware is)
BUt i'd love to see unlocked phones that can work on all major phone cell companys, they could be price but if they do lots of stuff people will buy it.. it might also be a good idea to release deals with companys(2 year agreements would get it cheaper but you can still buy it unlocked from the Apple store
starflyer
Apr 25, 02:04 PM
This is why we need a "loser pays" system.
jeanlain
Apr 6, 01:58 PM
There's something I don't get. Doesn't DVD SP allow you to author non-commercial (non-DRMed) bluray discs, with the same feature set as DVDs (but in HD)?
If it does, that should be good enough for many. I doubt that the big houses that produce commercial DVDs (Warner, Sony, etc), use Adobe Encore for their titles anyway... They likely use high end solutions from another league entirely.
If it does, that should be good enough for many. I doubt that the big houses that produce commercial DVDs (Warner, Sony, etc), use Adobe Encore for their titles anyway... They likely use high end solutions from another league entirely.
SiliconAddict
Aug 11, 03:02 PM
So what happens when Apple finds out the source of the leak was Jobs? Does he get fired? :p
brianus
Sep 20, 04:07 PM
So - are you inferring that Windows 2000 or Windows XP never blue screen? Because (if you are) that's a load of crap. I've seen blue screens in both OS's. Granted it's usually tied to hardware only, but it still happens. I've had an external USB drive blue screen in XP every time I turned it on, tried on 3 XP computers. Hardware fault, no doubt. Lately my HP Laptop dvd drive has been causing XP Pro to blue screen every other time I insert a dvd-r. Again - hardware fault.
Otherwise are both OS's stable? Damn straight. But problems do occur and I hope you're not suggesting otherwise. No OS is without its flaws.
Huh? When did I say they never, ever experience any crashes whatsoever? Good god, I have never seen such a collection of mind-bendingly literal-minded people in one thread. Yikes. No idiot would ever say they never ever crash. As was painfully obvious, I was comparing Mac users' perceptions of older Windows OS's to the more recent ones and saying their impressions were inaccurate. I've been dealing with OS X kernel panics and CarbonLib issues all day, but I would never suggest things are as bad as in the OS 8 days when you'd get that little "bomb" at the system would shut down.
It's already happened, just not in as a melodramatic way as you suggest (back to 1GHz? geez). AMD took a small step back, Hz wise when they introduced dual core, though it still advanced their "+" processor ratings I suppose that few noticed the actual clock reduction. Intel took a major step back Hz wise between Netburst and Core 2. The 5000 and 5100 series Xeon CPUs demonstrate this, you can get a Dell precision 690 with 3.73GHz Netburst based chips or the same 690 with 3.0GHz Core2 based chips.
One thing I've noticed is that store ads no longer quote GHz like they used to, but rather processor model numbers. Makes sense: most people will not bother to investigate further, but if they did see the GHz numbers of Pentiums on the same sale ad as those of Core 2's, they might not be so hot on the latter. And please, everyone for the love of god, do not treat me to 5 replies in which you remonstrate me for not getting that the Core 2's are actually faster - I GET IT.
Otherwise are both OS's stable? Damn straight. But problems do occur and I hope you're not suggesting otherwise. No OS is without its flaws.
Huh? When did I say they never, ever experience any crashes whatsoever? Good god, I have never seen such a collection of mind-bendingly literal-minded people in one thread. Yikes. No idiot would ever say they never ever crash. As was painfully obvious, I was comparing Mac users' perceptions of older Windows OS's to the more recent ones and saying their impressions were inaccurate. I've been dealing with OS X kernel panics and CarbonLib issues all day, but I would never suggest things are as bad as in the OS 8 days when you'd get that little "bomb" at the system would shut down.
It's already happened, just not in as a melodramatic way as you suggest (back to 1GHz? geez). AMD took a small step back, Hz wise when they introduced dual core, though it still advanced their "+" processor ratings I suppose that few noticed the actual clock reduction. Intel took a major step back Hz wise between Netburst and Core 2. The 5000 and 5100 series Xeon CPUs demonstrate this, you can get a Dell precision 690 with 3.73GHz Netburst based chips or the same 690 with 3.0GHz Core2 based chips.
One thing I've noticed is that store ads no longer quote GHz like they used to, but rather processor model numbers. Makes sense: most people will not bother to investigate further, but if they did see the GHz numbers of Pentiums on the same sale ad as those of Core 2's, they might not be so hot on the latter. And please, everyone for the love of god, do not treat me to 5 replies in which you remonstrate me for not getting that the Core 2's are actually faster - I GET IT.
swingerofbirch
Aug 26, 09:22 PM
May have been said, but ship dates on iMacs are 7-10 days.
Where do you see this? When I look at the Apple store it says ships in 1-2 days.
Where do you see this? When I look at the Apple store it says ships in 1-2 days.
bretm
Jul 20, 10:45 AM
My first job as a graphic designer I used an enhanced SE/30 (with 20" external monitor). About a year later we upgraded to the Quadras, so I guess that makes me #5?
I think I used a SE 25 with a 12" monitor.
I also remember the first mac I purchased was the cheapest PowerMac they had. I remember upgrading the RAM from 8mb to 16mb and it cost over $300 for that 8mb chip!
I think I used a SE 25 with a 12" monitor.
I also remember the first mac I purchased was the cheapest PowerMac they had. I remember upgrading the RAM from 8mb to 16mb and it cost over $300 for that 8mb chip!
GuitarDTO
Mar 31, 07:47 PM
Polished like the pure Google, "optimized from the ground up for tablets" Honeycomb running on the XOOM right now?
Yikes.
No...polished like Android 2.2 vs. 1.0. I think my Droid had 2.0 when I got it, and just going from 2.0 to 2.1 to 2.2 they made huge strides. Google will get it right, and this is just another step towards that. Has iOS always had the polish that it has currently? (Asking honestly, I'm new to iPhone).
Yikes.
No...polished like Android 2.2 vs. 1.0. I think my Droid had 2.0 when I got it, and just going from 2.0 to 2.1 to 2.2 they made huge strides. Google will get it right, and this is just another step towards that. Has iOS always had the polish that it has currently? (Asking honestly, I'm new to iPhone).
satzzz
Aug 26, 03:38 AM
Not everywhere is the apple support poor. Here in the netherlands I can't complain about the service and support!
I think it is also because of the knowlegde of apple. They have worked years with the "old" powermacs, and they know how to repair or support every problem and/or hardware, just because there expirience..
Now apple is switching to Intel, They don't have that expirience that they had with the "old" powermacs...
I think it is also because of the knowlegde of apple. They have worked years with the "old" powermacs, and they know how to repair or support every problem and/or hardware, just because there expirience..
Now apple is switching to Intel, They don't have that expirience that they had with the "old" powermacs...
Gelfin
Mar 3, 02:59 PM
Bill, it's OK to react emotionally. We're people, not robots. :)
Speak for yourself, squishy meat-beast.
Speak for yourself, squishy meat-beast.
ergle2
Sep 13, 01:00 PM
So Merom(Merom Santa Rosa)/Conroe/Woodcrest(Clovertown) are the end of the road of separate chips. No more mobile/desktop/sever chip... all are the same (should expect mobiles to have the lowest MHz, then desktop, then toping out with server)
I think you've misunderstood.
Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest are one microarch now. That's Intel's point -- the core is essentially the same. Then they package as appropriate for a given market. Merom is lower-voltage/lower-clockspeed, Woodcrest has the external pins for multi-processor exposed and has a higher FSB, etc.
There will still be different chips for different markets, but the arch is the same across the board. This is a significant difference from the Pentium-4/Pentium-M days, where the arch was very, very different.
The other big difference is the support chipsets -- the Xeon range use a different chipset that supports FBDIMM vs DDR2 for the Core 2 branded chips. This is the reason Intel kept the memory controller off the CPU die, so that they had more flexibility with memory types.
I think you've misunderstood.
Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest are one microarch now. That's Intel's point -- the core is essentially the same. Then they package as appropriate for a given market. Merom is lower-voltage/lower-clockspeed, Woodcrest has the external pins for multi-processor exposed and has a higher FSB, etc.
There will still be different chips for different markets, but the arch is the same across the board. This is a significant difference from the Pentium-4/Pentium-M days, where the arch was very, very different.
The other big difference is the support chipsets -- the Xeon range use a different chipset that supports FBDIMM vs DDR2 for the Core 2 branded chips. This is the reason Intel kept the memory controller off the CPU die, so that they had more flexibility with memory types.
KnightWRX
Mar 26, 12:19 PM
Do we know this? I know Samba is being replaced but does anyone have any details?
I presume it's going to have better support for Vista and 7 clients purely because if Apple didn't care about that there would be no reason to ditch the older version of Samba that's GPL2. However, does anyone have any actual details on what Apple's Samba replacement is?
Details found here :
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-removes-Samba-from-Mac-OS-X-10-7-Server-1215179.html
Gist of it :
- less features than Samba
- no more Active Directory Services
- Just file sharing now.
Samba developers have also noted that the true motive behind this move might not be the GPLv3 per say, but a more global move away from the GPL. Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Anyway, Samba v4 could have given them all the "features" they implemented and much more. Their own in-house version won't necessarily be better just because it's written by Apple. The Samba team does a great job with what Microsoft puts out as documentation (if you can even call it that).
Note that from the article, this change only impacts OS X Server. The client was already an in-house solution.
I presume it's going to have better support for Vista and 7 clients purely because if Apple didn't care about that there would be no reason to ditch the older version of Samba that's GPL2. However, does anyone have any actual details on what Apple's Samba replacement is?
Details found here :
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-removes-Samba-from-Mac-OS-X-10-7-Server-1215179.html
Gist of it :
- less features than Samba
- no more Active Directory Services
- Just file sharing now.
Samba developers have also noted that the true motive behind this move might not be the GPLv3 per say, but a more global move away from the GPL. Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Anyway, Samba v4 could have given them all the "features" they implemented and much more. Their own in-house version won't necessarily be better just because it's written by Apple. The Samba team does a great job with what Microsoft puts out as documentation (if you can even call it that).
Note that from the article, this change only impacts OS X Server. The client was already an in-house solution.
Full of Win
Mar 22, 01:10 PM
This is just a preview of the future, Android based tablets will clean the iPads clock. Apple made the so-called iPad 2 as a 1.5. Low res camera, not enough RAM, and low res screen. It's going to be a verrrry long 2012 for Apple. Sure it's selling like hot cakes now, but when buyers see tablets that they don't have to stand inline for, that have better equipment and are cheaper ... Apples house of cards will come crashing down around them.
The only strength that Apple has is the app ecosystem; which is why they are going after Amazon for spiting on the sidewalk. They know the world of hurt coming their way.
The only strength that Apple has is the app ecosystem; which is why they are going after Amazon for spiting on the sidewalk. They know the world of hurt coming their way.
Aleco
Apr 8, 01:23 AM
Best Buy made reservations on the iPad. When I went in and said they have several instock, he checked on the computer. They said they had 5 but it was all for reserved customers that put $100 down in the first place.
NightFox
Apr 19, 01:28 PM
I'm surprised to see iPhones have outsold iPod Touches by so much; I've never really considered the figures but just assumed that there would be way more iPod Touches around than iPhones.
