Tanglewood
Aug 7, 03:46 PM
I guess I would be underwhelmed if I had mistaken WWDC for Macworld or something, and expected a bunch of major new product announcements.
I agree. Release Mac Pro and just enough of Leopard to keep us going until January. Besides whats the point in Apple showing its entire hand with a release window 7-9 months out?
I do like that they'll be updating Mail. Having templates will be handy for what I use the program for.
I agree. Release Mac Pro and just enough of Leopard to keep us going until January. Besides whats the point in Apple showing its entire hand with a release window 7-9 months out?
I do like that they'll be updating Mail. Having templates will be handy for what I use the program for.
bretm
Jul 20, 10:39 AM
Ive already trademarked "OctoCore" and "CoreOcto";)
Just keep saying it to yourself. After about the 12th time it just starts rolling off your tongue...
El OchoCoro
Just keep saying it to yourself. After about the 12th time it just starts rolling off your tongue...
El OchoCoro
Malligator
Mar 31, 03:56 PM
Ironically, most of the people on this forum said iPhone on Verizon would be game over for Android.
This 'game over for Android' reminds me a lot of the 'this is the year of desktop linux' stuff that has been said every year for the last 9.
Or a lot like the "iPad Killer" monicker given to every piece of Android vaporware announced since 2007.
This 'game over for Android' reminds me a lot of the 'this is the year of desktop linux' stuff that has been said every year for the last 9.
Or a lot like the "iPad Killer" monicker given to every piece of Android vaporware announced since 2007.
Daremo
Apr 19, 01:30 PM
Some advice to those who make these images about "LOL'ing at Apple"... Try proof reading so we don't LOL at you.
EscobarFilms
Mar 26, 02:46 PM
do you guys think that new macs will launch along side with lion? like imac? that would be awsome :D :apple:
whatever
Aug 25, 03:53 PM
I've called Apple twice in the past week (on Saturday morning and this morning) and I received excellent support both times!
They answered my questions in a very timely manner.
I'm very hard on Support people because I did Technical Support for years and expect the highest level of support, which I've always received from Apple.
I've also been a .Mac subscriber since it was released and I've never had a problem with it. Yes, I'm currently getting those stupid stock SPAMS, but so is everyone else. I always check to see the address of where the e-mail is coming from, waiting for that day that my addresss is there and I've never see a .mac.com address in the "From" column. It's a great service and much better than the other e-mail services that I use.
They answered my questions in a very timely manner.
I'm very hard on Support people because I did Technical Support for years and expect the highest level of support, which I've always received from Apple.
I've also been a .Mac subscriber since it was released and I've never had a problem with it. Yes, I'm currently getting those stupid stock SPAMS, but so is everyone else. I always check to see the address of where the e-mail is coming from, waiting for that day that my addresss is there and I've never see a .mac.com address in the "From" column. It's a great service and much better than the other e-mail services that I use.
TeamMojo
Apr 7, 11:05 PM
Good for Apple. Best Buy is downright predatory. They often charge $30 for cables you can by elsewhere for $5 or less. And the whole new Fry's like winding checkout line is so lame. I do like to use Best Buy as an Amazon showroom.
OhEsTen
Jul 14, 02:34 PM
I figured Apple didn't change the cases for the powerbooks (MBP) MacBook's and mini's and iMac's for a reason...
It reminds people that nothing has really changed about them other than their brains (which is a big deal for sure - it just keep people from thinking Apple's going out of business...)
I remember when Apple made their announcement a year ago about the Intel switch - Macworld running an article about "what it all means" and "is this death for Apple?" - some people were a bit freaked out (which was completely understandable from the netburst point of view) - but keeping the same enclosures for the first round of intel boxes helps people not freak out.... maybe.
It reminds people that nothing has really changed about them other than their brains (which is a big deal for sure - it just keep people from thinking Apple's going out of business...)
I remember when Apple made their announcement a year ago about the Intel switch - Macworld running an article about "what it all means" and "is this death for Apple?" - some people were a bit freaked out (which was completely understandable from the netburst point of view) - but keeping the same enclosures for the first round of intel boxes helps people not freak out.... maybe.
krcbkidz
Mar 22, 05:07 PM
You obviously don't know much about samsung. Samsung makes RAM and CPU that apple uses in iphone/ipad. Possibly LCD too. A4 was definitely made by samsung. It's pretty certain A5 is also made by samsung, despite rumors TSMC will make them for apple.
Samsung being samsung, they can match Apple in price in tablet forever (well maybe not forever but for a long time) even without making much profit (not that they would do it). Samsung is HUGE. They have plenty of other stuff they can sell with profit.
I know about Samsung & the company's size. Yes, Samsung does manufacture parts for Apple; the parts they manufacture are according to Apple's R&D specifications & are designed by/for Apple only. Apple holds the license for specific parts (ie. the A5/A4 chip designs). Therefore even though Samsung manufactures the parts, they cannot put these parts in other hardware unless deemed so by Apple. Apple pays Samsung a fee to utilize their production facilities, which is a profit for Samsung. This profit is small compared to the margin of parts/production to MSRP that Apple reaps on each iPad. Apple controls hardware development, OS development, & UI development by keeping everything in house. Samsung utilizes a third party OS, & third party processor technology. I don't feel their user experience is as good as it could be. Samsung ultimately controls the manufacturing of the Tab but they leave money on the table as opposed to Apple's business model.
Samsung being samsung, they can match Apple in price in tablet forever (well maybe not forever but for a long time) even without making much profit (not that they would do it). Samsung is HUGE. They have plenty of other stuff they can sell with profit.
I know about Samsung & the company's size. Yes, Samsung does manufacture parts for Apple; the parts they manufacture are according to Apple's R&D specifications & are designed by/for Apple only. Apple holds the license for specific parts (ie. the A5/A4 chip designs). Therefore even though Samsung manufactures the parts, they cannot put these parts in other hardware unless deemed so by Apple. Apple pays Samsung a fee to utilize their production facilities, which is a profit for Samsung. This profit is small compared to the margin of parts/production to MSRP that Apple reaps on each iPad. Apple controls hardware development, OS development, & UI development by keeping everything in house. Samsung utilizes a third party OS, & third party processor technology. I don't feel their user experience is as good as it could be. Samsung ultimately controls the manufacturing of the Tab but they leave money on the table as opposed to Apple's business model.
mactoday
Apr 6, 10:49 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/06/intel-launching-next-generation-macbook-air-processors/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/02/11/094654-mba.jpg
As reported by Fudzilla (http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/22323-new-17w-core-i7-king-brand-is-2657m) and HardMac (http://www.hardmac.com/news/2011/04/06/intel-to-launch-sandy-bridge-chips-that-could-be-found-in-the-new-macbook-air), Intel is about to launch its next generation Sandy Bridge ultra low voltage CPUs suitable for the MacBook Air.
Due to the MacBook Air's thin form factor, it has required the use of particularly low power CPUs from Intel. Apple has stuck with Core 2 Duo processors with a maximum Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 10-17W. Apple is believed to have continued to use this older processor design in order to keep NVIDIA's graphics chips powering their ultracompact notebook. Due to licensing disputes (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/10/nvidia-and-intel-settle-nvidia-still-prohibited-from-building-chipsets-for-newest-intel-processors/), NVIDIA was prohibited from building newer chipsets that supported Intel's newest processors.
With the release of Sandy Bridge, Intel upgraded the performance of their integrated graphics chipset. This was good enough (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/24/apple-launches-macbook-pros-with-thunderbolt-quad-core-cpus-amd-gpus/) for Apple to offer in their latest 13" MacBook Pros, so we expect it will be good enough for the upcoming MacBook Airs as well. Apple had been previously rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/11/macbook-air-sandy-bridge-update-in-june/) to be introducing the "Sandy Bridge" MacBook Airs this June.
HardMac pinpoints the Core i5 2537M (17W) as the possible chip to be used, at least in the 13" model:Meanwhile, the current 11" MacBook air uses an even lower power (10W) processor, but it's not clear how much power savings is offered by removing the need for the NVIDIA graphics chipset, as the Intel solution is integrated within the processor itself.
Article Link: Intel Launching Next Generation MacBook Air Processors (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/06/intel-launching-next-generation-macbook-air-processors/)
Actually there is Core i7 2657M at 1.6Ghz 2 Cores with HT (4 threads) with turbo up to 2.4Ghz. TDP 17Watt. Looks better chip for top model 13" MacBook Air. Don't you think so? :)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/02/11/094654-mba.jpg
As reported by Fudzilla (http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/22323-new-17w-core-i7-king-brand-is-2657m) and HardMac (http://www.hardmac.com/news/2011/04/06/intel-to-launch-sandy-bridge-chips-that-could-be-found-in-the-new-macbook-air), Intel is about to launch its next generation Sandy Bridge ultra low voltage CPUs suitable for the MacBook Air.
Due to the MacBook Air's thin form factor, it has required the use of particularly low power CPUs from Intel. Apple has stuck with Core 2 Duo processors with a maximum Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 10-17W. Apple is believed to have continued to use this older processor design in order to keep NVIDIA's graphics chips powering their ultracompact notebook. Due to licensing disputes (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/10/nvidia-and-intel-settle-nvidia-still-prohibited-from-building-chipsets-for-newest-intel-processors/), NVIDIA was prohibited from building newer chipsets that supported Intel's newest processors.
With the release of Sandy Bridge, Intel upgraded the performance of their integrated graphics chipset. This was good enough (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/24/apple-launches-macbook-pros-with-thunderbolt-quad-core-cpus-amd-gpus/) for Apple to offer in their latest 13" MacBook Pros, so we expect it will be good enough for the upcoming MacBook Airs as well. Apple had been previously rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/11/macbook-air-sandy-bridge-update-in-june/) to be introducing the "Sandy Bridge" MacBook Airs this June.
HardMac pinpoints the Core i5 2537M (17W) as the possible chip to be used, at least in the 13" model:Meanwhile, the current 11" MacBook air uses an even lower power (10W) processor, but it's not clear how much power savings is offered by removing the need for the NVIDIA graphics chipset, as the Intel solution is integrated within the processor itself.
Article Link: Intel Launching Next Generation MacBook Air Processors (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/06/intel-launching-next-generation-macbook-air-processors/)
Actually there is Core i7 2657M at 1.6Ghz 2 Cores with HT (4 threads) with turbo up to 2.4Ghz. TDP 17Watt. Looks better chip for top model 13" MacBook Air. Don't you think so? :)
eoblaed
Apr 25, 02:48 PM
Thinking it's only stored on the device and not used by Apple is naive. What's the point of logging your every location if it's not going to be used in some way.
When you bought your device (even if you didn't purchase one, I'm speaking to the general 'you'), you knew that it had GPS capabilities. You knew that the phone knew where you were at any given time.
You also knew it had network capabilities. Nothing stops any GPS device with networking capabilities from broadcasting this data without you knowing. We trust the manufacturers of these devices to not do that.
Saying you don't trust Apple/Google/etc to not secretly broadcast your data just because it's backed up like your contacts/phone-conversation-information/texts/etc runs counter to the same trust you placed in those companies when you bought the device; if they're willing to broadcast that data because it's saved on your device they could just as easily broadcast that data as it's being gathered, real time without storing it. In fact, it'd be easier to do that since there wouldn't be an easy artifact left behind for people to gawk at.
Seriously, if you trust these companies to not broadcast your data behind your back while you're using it, why do you think they're going to broadcast it because it's part of your backup?
When you bought your device (even if you didn't purchase one, I'm speaking to the general 'you'), you knew that it had GPS capabilities. You knew that the phone knew where you were at any given time.
You also knew it had network capabilities. Nothing stops any GPS device with networking capabilities from broadcasting this data without you knowing. We trust the manufacturers of these devices to not do that.
Saying you don't trust Apple/Google/etc to not secretly broadcast your data just because it's backed up like your contacts/phone-conversation-information/texts/etc runs counter to the same trust you placed in those companies when you bought the device; if they're willing to broadcast that data because it's saved on your device they could just as easily broadcast that data as it's being gathered, real time without storing it. In fact, it'd be easier to do that since there wouldn't be an easy artifact left behind for people to gawk at.
Seriously, if you trust these companies to not broadcast your data behind your back while you're using it, why do you think they're going to broadcast it because it's part of your backup?
guffman
Aug 6, 01:43 PM
As Apple applied for the trademark, it will not be approved.
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
Um, http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=odbjam.2.2
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
Um, http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=odbjam.2.2
Bubba Satori
Apr 6, 08:17 AM
Forget about new Macs! just give us FCS A.S.A.P. :eek:
That makes a lot of sense.
Can't the most profitable corporation in the universe do two things at once?
That makes a lot of sense.
Can't the most profitable corporation in the universe do two things at once?
BornAgainMac
Aug 11, 01:54 PM
Mac Mobile should be the name of the phone. Remember that Steve said he wants Mac in the name. Mac Mobile will be perfect. Complete with Pocket Photo, Pocket Movie, Pocket Tunes, and Pocket iChat.
NAG
Mar 31, 04:45 PM
I don't think it is evil. It is crazy for people to pretend like Google makes Android to be benevolent and help the world. They have financial motives, and they have to protect their interests. Removing Google as search is probably going to be a huge no-no. It is kind of dumb that anyone has even tried to do that... That is part of the problem. Some of the carriers/manufacturers are stupid.
They have disrespected what Google has done for them and forced Google to clamp down. When someone gives you something for free and does a lot of work for you, you can at least respect their position and understand when you do things that might be stepping on their toes.
That is the real problem with the android commodity market though. It is not google, it is all the second rate manufacturers who sucked at making smartphones before Apple and Google, and continue to do dumb things to this day.
You mix a more general usage based OS with a hardware marketplace filled with knuckleheads, and you end up with the mess that is the Android hardware market and ecosystem.
That was a hoot changing the search to Bing. Only thing gutsier would be to somehow replace every admob ad to a competitor.
I wouldn't leave Google completely blameless here. They knew who they were dealing with. They need eyeballs to sell (ad business) so they made their bed. Same reason why the software marketplace on android sucks, they designed it for their bottom line (eyeballs). They aren't making a product for people to use, they're making a channel to deliver a product (eyeballs) to their customers (advertisers).
They have disrespected what Google has done for them and forced Google to clamp down. When someone gives you something for free and does a lot of work for you, you can at least respect their position and understand when you do things that might be stepping on their toes.
That is the real problem with the android commodity market though. It is not google, it is all the second rate manufacturers who sucked at making smartphones before Apple and Google, and continue to do dumb things to this day.
You mix a more general usage based OS with a hardware marketplace filled with knuckleheads, and you end up with the mess that is the Android hardware market and ecosystem.
That was a hoot changing the search to Bing. Only thing gutsier would be to somehow replace every admob ad to a competitor.
I wouldn't leave Google completely blameless here. They knew who they were dealing with. They need eyeballs to sell (ad business) so they made their bed. Same reason why the software marketplace on android sucks, they designed it for their bottom line (eyeballs). They aren't making a product for people to use, they're making a channel to deliver a product (eyeballs) to their customers (advertisers).
miketcool
Aug 11, 06:38 PM
You all must realize now that the touch screen scroll wheel is for the iPhone, not, the iPod. You wont watch video's on your phone, but youll listen to audio, dial numbers and store info. The Video player will be a spin off and be video oriented, this will be mobile oriented. $399, I'd still buy a mobile hub with music and phone capabilities.
It Cometh.
It Cometh.
lsvtecjohn3
Apr 6, 02:21 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Motorola doesn't "get" tablets yet, but the G1 didn't sell well either. Let's look at the market again in two years, I bet it'll look a lot different.
Cell phones and tablets are completely different. Unless some of these other manufacturer can get their tablets cheaper than the iPad I don't see that happing. The carriers are the ones are subsiding a lot of Android phones free with contract and BOGOF. Even if you can get a tablet subsidized for $299 with a two year contract I still don't know if people would be willing to spend $30 at the end of that contract thats over $1,000.
Another reason also is that the Xoom only has something like 20 Apps made for tablets where the iPad has over 65,000. You also have power user that see no need in a tablet right now.
Motorola doesn't "get" tablets yet, but the G1 didn't sell well either. Let's look at the market again in two years, I bet it'll look a lot different.
Cell phones and tablets are completely different. Unless some of these other manufacturer can get their tablets cheaper than the iPad I don't see that happing. The carriers are the ones are subsiding a lot of Android phones free with contract and BOGOF. Even if you can get a tablet subsidized for $299 with a two year contract I still don't know if people would be willing to spend $30 at the end of that contract thats over $1,000.
Another reason also is that the Xoom only has something like 20 Apps made for tablets where the iPad has over 65,000. You also have power user that see no need in a tablet right now.
4God
Jul 27, 10:00 AM
My credit card is melting just thinking about WWDC. :D
fivepoint
Apr 28, 03:50 PM
I wonder what it would be like to go through life looking for racism around every corner? Constantly seeing the world in these glasses would have to be very tiresome and frustrating. Pretty sad really. People need to stop thinking about themselves and others as being members of groups, and start thinking of everyone as individuals. We're a society of individuals, we get our rights and our liberties as individuals, not because we're part of group A or group B.
If liberals would stop 'crying wolf' ('claiming racism') at every corner, we might actually take them seriously and help out when there's actual evidence.
If liberals would stop 'crying wolf' ('claiming racism') at every corner, we might actually take them seriously and help out when there's actual evidence.
ergle2
Sep 14, 10:49 PM
Really, completely new? As in, to Core 2 what the G5 was to G4? In just two years?? I guess they're really ramping things up... Core 3 Hexa Mac Pros, anyone?
Intel's stated plans as I understand them are thus:
A new micro-arch every 2 years. I don't think they mean brand new so much as "significant changes/improvements". Whether this is akin to Yonah->Conroe or Netburst->Conroe remains to be seen, but more like the former (or perhaps Pentium-M -> Merom -- Core Duo was very much a stop-gap). Little has been released about Nehalem, but at one time it was slated as "based on Banias/Dothan", due in 2005 and expected to ramp to 9/10GHz.
"Off" years will recieve derivative versions (e.g. Merom->Penryn), which appears to be mostly stuff like L2 cache increases, faster FSB speeds (at least while we have FSBs - 2008 looks like the year for DCI, finally), die shrinks, increasing the number of cores (expect at least one to be more cores on a single die instead of two dice/package), etc.
Die shrinks are currently scheduled for "off" years, in order to stablize the process ready for the new micro-arch in the following year so Intel doesn't need to deal with both new process and new arch at the same time, and presumably in part to keep speed increases coming in "off" years
Of course, roadmaps can change quite rapidly -- it's not that long ago that Whitfield was expected to debut late 2006 with DCI (FSB replacement). Whitfield was replaced by Tigerton which is now due sometime in 2007...
One thing's for sure, Intel appears to have learnt a great deal from the Netburst fiasco -- how not to do things, if nothing else. Unfortunately, they still estimate ~50% of processors shipping in 1Q2007 will be netburst-based (mostly Pentium-D).
Intel's stated plans as I understand them are thus:
A new micro-arch every 2 years. I don't think they mean brand new so much as "significant changes/improvements". Whether this is akin to Yonah->Conroe or Netburst->Conroe remains to be seen, but more like the former (or perhaps Pentium-M -> Merom -- Core Duo was very much a stop-gap). Little has been released about Nehalem, but at one time it was slated as "based on Banias/Dothan", due in 2005 and expected to ramp to 9/10GHz.
"Off" years will recieve derivative versions (e.g. Merom->Penryn), which appears to be mostly stuff like L2 cache increases, faster FSB speeds (at least while we have FSBs - 2008 looks like the year for DCI, finally), die shrinks, increasing the number of cores (expect at least one to be more cores on a single die instead of two dice/package), etc.
Die shrinks are currently scheduled for "off" years, in order to stablize the process ready for the new micro-arch in the following year so Intel doesn't need to deal with both new process and new arch at the same time, and presumably in part to keep speed increases coming in "off" years
Of course, roadmaps can change quite rapidly -- it's not that long ago that Whitfield was expected to debut late 2006 with DCI (FSB replacement). Whitfield was replaced by Tigerton which is now due sometime in 2007...
One thing's for sure, Intel appears to have learnt a great deal from the Netburst fiasco -- how not to do things, if nothing else. Unfortunately, they still estimate ~50% of processors shipping in 1Q2007 will be netburst-based (mostly Pentium-D).
shamino
Jul 21, 10:07 AM
With all these new technologies with 4, 8 and eventually 24-core capacities (some time in the not too distant future) all running at 64-bit, we musn't forget that software also has tobe developed for these machienes in order to get the most out of the hardware. At the moment we aren't even maximising core-duo, let alone a quad core and all the rest!!!!
It really depends on your application.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use.
If you get away from the desktop and look to the server market, however, the picture changes. A web server may only be running one copy of Apache, but it may create a thread for every simultaneous connection. If you have 8 cores, then you can handle 8 times as many connections as a 1-core system can (assuming sufficient memory and I/O bandwidth, of course.) Ditto for database, transaction, and all kinds of other servers. More cores means more simultaneous connections without performance degradation.
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.
It really depends on your application.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use.
If you get away from the desktop and look to the server market, however, the picture changes. A web server may only be running one copy of Apache, but it may create a thread for every simultaneous connection. If you have 8 cores, then you can handle 8 times as many connections as a 1-core system can (assuming sufficient memory and I/O bandwidth, of course.) Ditto for database, transaction, and all kinds of other servers. More cores means more simultaneous connections without performance degradation.
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.
bibbz
Jun 11, 08:25 AM
Well that is pretty dumb of them to do that. Makes no difference whether the store does it or you send it in. You would think they would want you to take it into a store so an employee can see the product and make their judgement.
Thats exactly it, we judge them honestly bc we can get in trouble if we say its a pristine condition phone to get you more money then send it in and its old and busted...
I'm on a conf call and just got word about the early openings. As soon as i get to work in a minute ill post all the info i have. :)
Thats exactly it, we judge them honestly bc we can get in trouble if we say its a pristine condition phone to get you more money then send it in and its old and busted...
I'm on a conf call and just got word about the early openings. As soon as i get to work in a minute ill post all the info i have. :)
faroZ06
Apr 27, 08:43 AM
And once again people give Apple a pass for something that is clearly an issue.
You mean to tell me that Apple, a company that seems to release fairly solid software, "neglected" to test that when disabling an option called LOCATION SERVICES, that it actually disabled location checking properly? Are some of you really so Jobsian?
Call a spade a spade. There's no possible chance this was a mistake. They got caught. They should not be given a pass over it. If a user opts to disable Location Services, they were working under the false impression that their location was no longer being tracked. Seems mighty shifty to me. Doesn't matter how much data might have been user-identifiable. This sounds like something Google would do, not Apple.
Not really. Although location services does not delete the log when you turn it off, it does cease to record to it. I don't see what the problem with that is.
You mean to tell me that Apple, a company that seems to release fairly solid software, "neglected" to test that when disabling an option called LOCATION SERVICES, that it actually disabled location checking properly? Are some of you really so Jobsian?
Call a spade a spade. There's no possible chance this was a mistake. They got caught. They should not be given a pass over it. If a user opts to disable Location Services, they were working under the false impression that their location was no longer being tracked. Seems mighty shifty to me. Doesn't matter how much data might have been user-identifiable. This sounds like something Google would do, not Apple.
Not really. Although location services does not delete the log when you turn it off, it does cease to record to it. I don't see what the problem with that is.
Ahheck01
Apr 12, 08:35 AM
What time do we expect an annoucement today? Any live feeds out there on NAB?
