noahtk
Apr 6, 01:55 PM
WE CAN ONLY HOPE!!! A price drop would be nice too.
mdriftmeyer
Apr 25, 03:56 PM
Except secured
How does an encrypted db aide your sense of security when the information is about publicly listed cell towers [FCC registered], and ends up at Google which profiles your activities for trends which then allows them to resell this information through their AdSense service and more?
How did your sense of security become violated when the Telcos have historically sold your contact information to third parties who flood your mail box with junk mail and get you on lists w/o your consent? Does it send you through the roof that your liberties are being violated?
Do you scream at Safeway, Albertsons, Starbucks and every other business that profiles your buying habits that it pushes you to file a class action lawsuit?
I think not.
This and all subsequent lawsuits will be thrown out. Apple is in compliance with the FCC rules and regulations set by Congress.
If you notice, Congress has been conspicuously absent since sending off a letter to Steven P. Jobs.
The only people pushing this story are blogs and journalists [HuffingtonPost, WSJ, etc] because it gets them massive click through results.
People are crying about a location service doing what it's designed to do, yet they acted as if RFID tags that WalMart wanted to deploy, a few years back, was no big deal.
One of the obvious reasons Apple sees no reason to encrypt the db is it's one extra process to decrypt/encrypt each time a new tower cell is logged to the phone as it keeps probing for the best signal, shortest path to that signal solution, across a spread spectrum.
But then again, I forget that 99% of all consumers are Physicists, Engineers, Mathematicians, Doctors, and we produce children with Ph.D's ala Wesley Crusher dealing with Particle Physics at the tender age of 15 so commonly that the thought of an unintelligent human has long since become a relic to the evolution of the species.
While everyone screams about tracking they conveniently ignore the IP address that keeps them tracked using their own computer(s).
How does an encrypted db aide your sense of security when the information is about publicly listed cell towers [FCC registered], and ends up at Google which profiles your activities for trends which then allows them to resell this information through their AdSense service and more?
How did your sense of security become violated when the Telcos have historically sold your contact information to third parties who flood your mail box with junk mail and get you on lists w/o your consent? Does it send you through the roof that your liberties are being violated?
Do you scream at Safeway, Albertsons, Starbucks and every other business that profiles your buying habits that it pushes you to file a class action lawsuit?
I think not.
This and all subsequent lawsuits will be thrown out. Apple is in compliance with the FCC rules and regulations set by Congress.
If you notice, Congress has been conspicuously absent since sending off a letter to Steven P. Jobs.
The only people pushing this story are blogs and journalists [HuffingtonPost, WSJ, etc] because it gets them massive click through results.
People are crying about a location service doing what it's designed to do, yet they acted as if RFID tags that WalMart wanted to deploy, a few years back, was no big deal.
One of the obvious reasons Apple sees no reason to encrypt the db is it's one extra process to decrypt/encrypt each time a new tower cell is logged to the phone as it keeps probing for the best signal, shortest path to that signal solution, across a spread spectrum.
But then again, I forget that 99% of all consumers are Physicists, Engineers, Mathematicians, Doctors, and we produce children with Ph.D's ala Wesley Crusher dealing with Particle Physics at the tender age of 15 so commonly that the thought of an unintelligent human has long since become a relic to the evolution of the species.
While everyone screams about tracking they conveniently ignore the IP address that keeps them tracked using their own computer(s).
Chundles
Jul 20, 09:21 AM
No I think you are confused. :) I meant "Is having more cores, lets say 8, more efficient than one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores?"
Well next time say what you mean. It makes more sense. ;)
Well next time say what you mean. It makes more sense. ;)
Mr. Retrofire
Apr 6, 07:08 PM
The GPU performance decrease is much more severe that you let on...
...VDA (Video Decode Acceleration) framework support : Intel 3000HD isn't supported, forget hardware accelerated decoding of Flash content in H.264.
Apple does not install Flash Player on newer machines, so this is not a problem.
Try youtube.com/html5 (http://www.youtube.com/html5) or ClickToFlash (http://rentzsch.github.com/clicktoflash/) or other HTML5-Safari extensions (http://www.macupdate.com/find/mac/html5%20extension)!
OpenCL. Big selling point for Snow Leopard, absent from most of their hardware line-up now.
You obviously know nothing about OpenCL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL). OpenCL is not hardware dependent. OpenCL programs can run even on old 300 MHz PowerPC processors, if someone writes a OpenCL-compiler for this platform.
...VDA (Video Decode Acceleration) framework support : Intel 3000HD isn't supported, forget hardware accelerated decoding of Flash content in H.264.
Apple does not install Flash Player on newer machines, so this is not a problem.
Try youtube.com/html5 (http://www.youtube.com/html5) or ClickToFlash (http://rentzsch.github.com/clicktoflash/) or other HTML5-Safari extensions (http://www.macupdate.com/find/mac/html5%20extension)!
OpenCL. Big selling point for Snow Leopard, absent from most of their hardware line-up now.
You obviously know nothing about OpenCL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL). OpenCL is not hardware dependent. OpenCL programs can run even on old 300 MHz PowerPC processors, if someone writes a OpenCL-compiler for this platform.
JoeG4
Nov 29, 12:56 AM
In other news: universal thinks they're god.
Pontavignon
Mar 31, 07:54 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Finally Google admits Jobs was right about fragmentation and recognises that to fight Apple it must become Apple. But it won't admit it. Prepare for lots of "closed is open and open is closed" stuff. Plus: the state of emergency justifying this closure is temporary: sort of like in Syria 50 years ago.
You know, I am truly sorry for the idealists in the open source community. They deserve better.
Finally Google admits Jobs was right about fragmentation and recognises that to fight Apple it must become Apple. But it won't admit it. Prepare for lots of "closed is open and open is closed" stuff. Plus: the state of emergency justifying this closure is temporary: sort of like in Syria 50 years ago.
You know, I am truly sorry for the idealists in the open source community. They deserve better.
aswitcher
Jul 20, 04:55 PM
First rev prices for any such beasts are going to be "excessive"
4God
Jul 14, 03:56 PM
This means that the 2.7 GHz G5 of a year ago or more would still be a high for CPU speeds for the PowerMac/MacPro line. We already have dual dual 2.5 GHz G5 a year ago. An increase to 2.66 GHz means that either 2008 or 2009 we will see the promised 3 GHz PowerMac/MacPro.
Any bets on which year it will be?
Bill the TaxMan
I think we'll see more cores per cpu before we see 3GHz. IMHO, 4,8 or more cores at 2.66 is far better than 1 or 2 cores at 3GHz.
Any bets on which year it will be?
Bill the TaxMan
I think we'll see more cores per cpu before we see 3GHz. IMHO, 4,8 or more cores at 2.66 is far better than 1 or 2 cores at 3GHz.
ZoomZoomZoom
Aug 8, 02:13 AM
Time Machine looks to be one of those things you never use, but then one day you'll need to use it and you'll be really glad it's here. I don't like the stars and stuff in the background, though. So tacky.
I'm really interested about Spaces. I constantly have loads of windows/applications running around, and having something to manage it all would be awesome.
The new iChat features look very promising. Can't really say the same for Mail/Dashboard/iCal/Spotlight, though - not too impressed with those. Whatever is top secret had better blow all of this stuff out of the water, or else I wouldn't call Leopard "Vista 2.0".
I'm really interested about Spaces. I constantly have loads of windows/applications running around, and having something to manage it all would be awesome.
The new iChat features look very promising. Can't really say the same for Mail/Dashboard/iCal/Spotlight, though - not too impressed with those. Whatever is top secret had better blow all of this stuff out of the water, or else I wouldn't call Leopard "Vista 2.0".
epitaphic
Aug 19, 05:57 PM
There's allready en new beta of Adobe's Lightroom, Does that one run native under on the intel machines?
From Adobe's site:
Will Lightroom run on Intel-based Macintoshes?
Yes. The Macintosh version of Adobe Lightroom beta 3 is a Universal application that will run natively both on PowerPC systems and on the new Intel-based Macintoshes.
From Adobe's site:
Will Lightroom run on Intel-based Macintoshes?
Yes. The Macintosh version of Adobe Lightroom beta 3 is a Universal application that will run natively both on PowerPC systems and on the new Intel-based Macintoshes.
brianus
Sep 14, 12:56 PM
The server/desktop division with Windows - as with OS X - is one of marketing, not software. Windows "Workstation" and Windows "Server" use the same codebase.
True (today anyway; in the NT era they were indeed separate platforms though. Which brings me to my next point..)
Similarly, if you're one of the "Vista is just XP with a fancy skin" crowd, you've obviously not done much research. The changes in Vista are on par with the scale of changes Apple made to NeXT to get OS X.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
True (today anyway; in the NT era they were indeed separate platforms though. Which brings me to my next point..)
Similarly, if you're one of the "Vista is just XP with a fancy skin" crowd, you've obviously not done much research. The changes in Vista are on par with the scale of changes Apple made to NeXT to get OS X.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
morespce54
Aug 11, 12:18 PM
Using TimeMachine, Steve is going to release it two years ago.
LOL !!!!!!! Stop it !!!!! :D
LOL !!!!!!! Stop it !!!!! :D
Chundles
Jul 20, 08:58 AM
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
I think you're a bit confused, 8x 3GHz cores doesn't equal 1x 24GHz processor.
I think you're a bit confused, 8x 3GHz cores doesn't equal 1x 24GHz processor.
akadmon
Sep 19, 11:19 AM
I ordered my 15" MBP yesterday and they are telling me it will ship next Tuesday. I sure hope that when the package arrives the MBP will have no stinking Merom, no more than 512 MB RAM, no better than an 80 Gb/5400 rpm HDD, and -- please God -- no magnetic latch! Oh - and one more thing: Apple better not send me a refund if they lower the price before the package hits my doorstep. :mad:
zacman
Apr 20, 03:46 AM
And the design was released after the iPhone was out.
No, it was shown at IFA 2006 for the first time but "officially presented" a few months later.
No, it was shown at IFA 2006 for the first time but "officially presented" a few months later.
leekohler
Apr 28, 10:21 AM
I think you hit the nail on the head. Trump may have made a tactical error by starting the hardcore birther attack too early. But of course he's got more tricks in his bag. He will fire one attack after another to wear down his enemy. It kind of makes me wonder if Trump is a closet Scientologist.
Well, he's certainly not a closet jackass.
Well, he's certainly not a closet jackass.
ugp
Jun 19, 05:58 PM
There is no telling how much Inventory RadioShack is going to actually receive. My buddy told me my pre-order, I mean reserve was the first one to go through in the district. Our district here was able to generate 60 PINs he was told by the DM. Not I don't believe anything RadioShack says and don't expect them to receive all 60 of the phones. I just pray that his store receives at least one iPhone 4 so I can have mine.
aafuss1
Aug 6, 05:26 PM
I think they'll go UDI instead of HDMI (and save fees). The really interesting question here though is HDCP and what means for all existing hardware including cinema displays...
HDMI is very common-as many brands have it now. Some PC's also use it. UDI is better-but not a lot of devices may have until 2007.
HDMI is very common-as many brands have it now. Some PC's also use it. UDI is better-but not a lot of devices may have until 2007.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 30, 08:24 PM
Doesn't mean its a good idea or helpful to the nation, but its not libel/slander if its true.
Fair enough, but I think many are willing to make hasty public comments about others. On Chopped, a program on the Food Network, a judge accused a competitor of lying when the competitor said that before the show, he had already used an ingredient that he used incorrectly on the program. Maybe the contestant's other dish came out poorly when he first used that ingredient. I've written some programs in IBM 370 assembly language. So I've that language. But I've forgotten what I learned about it.
On other message board some posters accused others of homophobia, sounding as though they couldn't have cared less about whether or how much they harmed the reputations of the accused. On other boards, some posters accused me of homophobia, too. Unfortunately, I doubt that the accuser even wonder whether it would have been better to send me a private message instead.
I know that some people here believe that I'm too socially conservative. Although they may be right, I prefer too much caution to too little caution.
To their credit, everyone here has treated me politely, even when I've said things that offended them. Compared to posters I've met at some other boards, people here, including Lee Kohler, control themselves admirably. But if I, and I do mean I, calumniate someone politely publicly, privately, or both, polite wording doesn't make up for the harm I do to the calumniated person's reputation.
But its clear what you are implying
I didn't intend to imply anything.
Fair enough, but I think many are willing to make hasty public comments about others. On Chopped, a program on the Food Network, a judge accused a competitor of lying when the competitor said that before the show, he had already used an ingredient that he used incorrectly on the program. Maybe the contestant's other dish came out poorly when he first used that ingredient. I've written some programs in IBM 370 assembly language. So I've that language. But I've forgotten what I learned about it.
On other message board some posters accused others of homophobia, sounding as though they couldn't have cared less about whether or how much they harmed the reputations of the accused. On other boards, some posters accused me of homophobia, too. Unfortunately, I doubt that the accuser even wonder whether it would have been better to send me a private message instead.
I know that some people here believe that I'm too socially conservative. Although they may be right, I prefer too much caution to too little caution.
To their credit, everyone here has treated me politely, even when I've said things that offended them. Compared to posters I've met at some other boards, people here, including Lee Kohler, control themselves admirably. But if I, and I do mean I, calumniate someone politely publicly, privately, or both, polite wording doesn't make up for the harm I do to the calumniated person's reputation.
But its clear what you are implying
I didn't intend to imply anything.
ChrisA
Aug 16, 10:53 PM
My main interest is in FCP the FCP results.
On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?
I think movie editing depends a lot on the speed of the disk subsystem. After all Mini DV is 12GB per hour. That's a of data. When yo "scrub" a shot all that data has to move off the disk and onto the video card. Even with 16MB of RAM not much of the video data can be help in RAM. So the G5 and Intel machine have disks that are about the same speed. Speed of a disk is measured by how fast the bit fly under the read/write head not the interface speed. So I am not surprized the Intel Mac Pro is not hugly faster for video.
On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?
I think movie editing depends a lot on the speed of the disk subsystem. After all Mini DV is 12GB per hour. That's a of data. When yo "scrub" a shot all that data has to move off the disk and onto the video card. Even with 16MB of RAM not much of the video data can be help in RAM. So the G5 and Intel machine have disks that are about the same speed. Speed of a disk is measured by how fast the bit fly under the read/write head not the interface speed. So I am not surprized the Intel Mac Pro is not hugly faster for video.
Funkymonk
Apr 19, 01:32 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.
why? iphones outselling itouches by so much makes sense to me.
why? iphones outselling itouches by so much makes sense to me.
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
milo
Aug 17, 04:29 PM
Some people do things called graphic design and video editing for a living. Sometimes, when you want to make money and put food on the table, you want top of the line equipment.:rolleyes:
I guess you missed that he was responding to someone talking about gaming? Less eye rolling, more paying attention.
To make more money faster.Yes. I agree totally. If you are making your living with your Mac doing graphics and video work, every minute saved is another minute you can take on another client or meet a perviously impossible deadline. So in that case the extra $850 is made up in a matter of a few weeks or months at worst. Totally understandable when time is money for the Mac professional. :)
Ditto.
I guess you missed that he was responding to someone talking about gaming? Less eye rolling, more paying attention.
To make more money faster.Yes. I agree totally. If you are making your living with your Mac doing graphics and video work, every minute saved is another minute you can take on another client or meet a perviously impossible deadline. So in that case the extra $850 is made up in a matter of a few weeks or months at worst. Totally understandable when time is money for the Mac professional. :)
Ditto.
tkingart
Mar 27, 03:54 AM
The only thing I don't like in Lion (based on screenshots I've seen) are the "flat gray scroll bars" adopted from iOS, this going back to 2d seems like back pedaling. I think something between flat and 3d would actually work, like get rid of the rounded center, flatten it but keep the edges soft and shaded, keeping the scroll bar wells the same. I suspect it's being flattened because of possible support for touch screens.
I understand the need for simplicity and streamlining, but where we lack tactile feedback, 3d helps with the illusion of depth, take that away and it will look like a devolving interface. Look at the OS X dock for instance, I was elated when it became three dimensional, now imagine if they made it flat again (permanently). I'm sure it may be a preferential thing, but I don't think I'm alone in preferring the 3d dock view.
We need to keep pushing forward with three dimensions in UI designs. It would be really cool to see some forward thinking UI changes like the ability to "push" running applications into the inside quad of a cylindrical shape that can be rotated with gestures.
The flat scroll bar belongs in Folder > Grid views and preview, looks alright there. :)
I understand the need for simplicity and streamlining, but where we lack tactile feedback, 3d helps with the illusion of depth, take that away and it will look like a devolving interface. Look at the OS X dock for instance, I was elated when it became three dimensional, now imagine if they made it flat again (permanently). I'm sure it may be a preferential thing, but I don't think I'm alone in preferring the 3d dock view.
We need to keep pushing forward with three dimensions in UI designs. It would be really cool to see some forward thinking UI changes like the ability to "push" running applications into the inside quad of a cylindrical shape that can be rotated with gestures.
The flat scroll bar belongs in Folder > Grid views and preview, looks alright there. :)
