Eraserhead
Mar 19, 05:07 AM
Its always a tough call, if you don't go in you risk something like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
Where over half a million people are killed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
Where over half a million people are killed.
EllisU
Feb 7, 03:11 PM
joining in...quick cell phone snap of the jeep:
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm36/ellisu/IMG_0712.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm36/ellisu/IMG_0712.jpg
polsons
Jan 11, 07:20 AM
As a fellow Australian imac_japan i'll support your enthusiasm, but as one who is old enough to have actually witnessed the history of Apple I think you are about to be enormously disappointed
If indeed a headless Mac does materialize, it will not be the first to have come from Apple. Apple have tried this concept many times before and all attempts have failed miserably. Maybe a dual G5 Cube for the price of an eMac might have some success, but a miserably under specified G4 (as is being claimed) is DEAD even before it hits the stores.
True the end may be near for Apple's hardware (5 or 10 years so to speak), but MacOS will be around for as long as computers continue to be manufactured. Even the most pessimistic analyst will concede that MacOS X and Apple's apps on x86 would see Microsoft as the world's second largest software developer. And who really cares about the hardware. The best PC hardware is every bit as good as Apple's hardware....it's just that the software stinks.
Let's be honest here. Do we really want Mac OS X to become MS Windows? Yes, Windows has thousands of apps not available on Mac, but most are developed by egotistical script kiddies with absolutely no idea of what they are doing, and then trying to pass it off as the greatest app ever written solely because they coded it. The best Windows apps always have been and probably always will be available on Mac. But they are long established mature apps developed by long established developers. If you can't afford them, then buy a PC and be content with using script kiddie crap.
And therein lies the unique and most appealing aspect of Apple hardware. MORONS can't afford it. As long as Apple keeps developing MacOS X and morons are forced to buy Windows PC's, I'll remain very happy with the current situation as it stands. No $499 headless Mac and no Mac in every home for me thank you. As far as I am concerned, the last thing I want to see is a user base swarming with dickheads. Windows has already reached that plateau, and sadly Linux is running not that far behind.
If indeed a headless Mac does materialize, it will not be the first to have come from Apple. Apple have tried this concept many times before and all attempts have failed miserably. Maybe a dual G5 Cube for the price of an eMac might have some success, but a miserably under specified G4 (as is being claimed) is DEAD even before it hits the stores.
True the end may be near for Apple's hardware (5 or 10 years so to speak), but MacOS will be around for as long as computers continue to be manufactured. Even the most pessimistic analyst will concede that MacOS X and Apple's apps on x86 would see Microsoft as the world's second largest software developer. And who really cares about the hardware. The best PC hardware is every bit as good as Apple's hardware....it's just that the software stinks.
Let's be honest here. Do we really want Mac OS X to become MS Windows? Yes, Windows has thousands of apps not available on Mac, but most are developed by egotistical script kiddies with absolutely no idea of what they are doing, and then trying to pass it off as the greatest app ever written solely because they coded it. The best Windows apps always have been and probably always will be available on Mac. But they are long established mature apps developed by long established developers. If you can't afford them, then buy a PC and be content with using script kiddie crap.
And therein lies the unique and most appealing aspect of Apple hardware. MORONS can't afford it. As long as Apple keeps developing MacOS X and morons are forced to buy Windows PC's, I'll remain very happy with the current situation as it stands. No $499 headless Mac and no Mac in every home for me thank you. As far as I am concerned, the last thing I want to see is a user base swarming with dickheads. Windows has already reached that plateau, and sadly Linux is running not that far behind.
adroit
Nov 15, 11:25 AM
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
This is true, but there are still many many ways to optimize the multi-core processor that's not currently being use.
For example, I am waiting for a program to compile right now. Although I have a dual core on my computer, the compiler only compile one file at a time and usually takes about 10 min to do a full compile . If I have an 8 core computer with a multi-threaded compiler then I can cut the total time to jsut over a min + couple of seconds for linking time.
I think the main problem with muti-threading program is that it is difficult to implement, especially for coders who only knows high-level languages. Muti-threading in low-level program such as C is not easy but at least it is straight-forward. But trying to muti-thread high-level language such as VB or C# can get you into a big headace since everything is abstracted from the programmer. To do that, you need to get into unsafe code and call a bunch of DLLs, and it's easy to get memory leaks. Basically it can start to get very complicated, very quickly.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
This is true, but there are still many many ways to optimize the multi-core processor that's not currently being use.
For example, I am waiting for a program to compile right now. Although I have a dual core on my computer, the compiler only compile one file at a time and usually takes about 10 min to do a full compile . If I have an 8 core computer with a multi-threaded compiler then I can cut the total time to jsut over a min + couple of seconds for linking time.
I think the main problem with muti-threading program is that it is difficult to implement, especially for coders who only knows high-level languages. Muti-threading in low-level program such as C is not easy but at least it is straight-forward. But trying to muti-thread high-level language such as VB or C# can get you into a big headace since everything is abstracted from the programmer. To do that, you need to get into unsafe code and call a bunch of DLLs, and it's easy to get memory leaks. Basically it can start to get very complicated, very quickly.
lilo777
Apr 3, 12:40 AM
It was the brain scans..
Like when your competitors can't compete on usability and applications, they talk about meaningless "features" no one actually cares about.
Like when device can be useful with poor specs. Are you talking about those iPad 2 cameras? How useful are those with their embarrassing specs?
Like when your competitors can't compete on usability and applications, they talk about meaningless "features" no one actually cares about.
Like when device can be useful with poor specs. Are you talking about those iPad 2 cameras? How useful are those with their embarrassing specs?
lordonuthin
May 8, 08:08 PM
also, congrats to whiterabbit for 15 million points!
Thanks, I hope this will be my best month yet, we shall see...
Thanks, I hope this will be my best month yet, we shall see...
MacRumors
Sep 6, 08:40 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Apple has updated the Mac Mini to include all Core Duo models. Other than the processor upgrade, there does not appear to be any differences between the previous Mac Mini and today's release. The Mac Mini is available in two offerings:
1.66 GHz Mac Mini
60 GB 5400-rpm SATA Hard Drive
Combo Drive
1.83 GHz Mac Mini
80 GB 5400-rpm SATA Hard Drive
Superdrive
Both models feature:
-2MB Shared L2 Cache
-512 MB 667 MHz DDR2 RAM standard (up to 2 GB supported)
-GMA 950 Integrated graphics
-1 Firewire 400, 4 USB 2.0
-Optical Digital/Analog Audio In/Out
-Gigabit ethernet
-Airport Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0+EDR standard
Of note, the Mac Mini still uses Core Duo (Yonah), not the more advanced Core 2 Duo "Merom" chip found in today's iMac announcements (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060906091309.shtml).
Apple has updated the Mac Mini to include all Core Duo models. Other than the processor upgrade, there does not appear to be any differences between the previous Mac Mini and today's release. The Mac Mini is available in two offerings:
1.66 GHz Mac Mini
60 GB 5400-rpm SATA Hard Drive
Combo Drive
1.83 GHz Mac Mini
80 GB 5400-rpm SATA Hard Drive
Superdrive
Both models feature:
-2MB Shared L2 Cache
-512 MB 667 MHz DDR2 RAM standard (up to 2 GB supported)
-GMA 950 Integrated graphics
-1 Firewire 400, 4 USB 2.0
-Optical Digital/Analog Audio In/Out
-Gigabit ethernet
-Airport Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0+EDR standard
Of note, the Mac Mini still uses Core Duo (Yonah), not the more advanced Core 2 Duo "Merom" chip found in today's iMac announcements (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060906091309.shtml).
Homy
Jan 5, 04:31 PM
I dont get why people are saying we will get updates to MacBook Pros/iMacs, what will they be updated with?. The Core 2 Duo chips are still the newest chips from intel. Santa Rosa is yet to debut.
I dont see any updates to them im afraid at MWSF. Maybe we'll see the ultrathin MBP but i highly doubt it...The GPU Radeon X1600 in iMac is one year old now. It was launched Oct 5, 2005 by ATI. It would be a minor but yet important update.
I dont see any updates to them im afraid at MWSF. Maybe we'll see the ultrathin MBP but i highly doubt it...The GPU Radeon X1600 in iMac is one year old now. It was launched Oct 5, 2005 by ATI. It would be a minor but yet important update.
regandarcy
Apr 19, 11:22 AM
13" maybe, but the 11" doesn't look to be refreshed for a while. AFAIK Intel has as yet not announced a new CPU that is as low power as the Core2Duo in the 11" MBA.
Along with a new iMac, I'd love to get a new MacBook air too. As much as I LOVE my iPad as the BEST way to surf the web...it's not as versatile a tool when on the road as I had hoped. Even tho the iPad 2 has iMovie now, you can only edit movies shot on apple iOS devices with it. Imovie on the ipad won't let you import And edit HD movies directly from your camera...which sucks.
Anyway...if the new MacBook airs get sandy bridge, thunderbolt and BIGGER flash drives I will pick one up in a...um....FLASH! Seriously. I love the fact that Apple is phasing out the CD/DVD drives. Don't need em, don't want em. BUT the biggest thing stopping me from getting a MacBook air has been the HD size. Even the 256gb drive is pushing it for my needs. A 320gb flash drive or better yet, a 500gb flash drive in one of these babies would have me drooling. If they can get the prices down is the big question. Might need another couple years for that to happen.
Lastly, come on Apple...4gigs of ram should be standard. :-) heh heh heh.
Along with a new iMac, I'd love to get a new MacBook air too. As much as I LOVE my iPad as the BEST way to surf the web...it's not as versatile a tool when on the road as I had hoped. Even tho the iPad 2 has iMovie now, you can only edit movies shot on apple iOS devices with it. Imovie on the ipad won't let you import And edit HD movies directly from your camera...which sucks.
Anyway...if the new MacBook airs get sandy bridge, thunderbolt and BIGGER flash drives I will pick one up in a...um....FLASH! Seriously. I love the fact that Apple is phasing out the CD/DVD drives. Don't need em, don't want em. BUT the biggest thing stopping me from getting a MacBook air has been the HD size. Even the 256gb drive is pushing it for my needs. A 320gb flash drive or better yet, a 500gb flash drive in one of these babies would have me drooling. If they can get the prices down is the big question. Might need another couple years for that to happen.
Lastly, come on Apple...4gigs of ram should be standard. :-) heh heh heh.
iJohnHenry
Apr 20, 04:58 PM
Yes, I love driving manual transmission cars. It's fun.
Yeah, but the others should know that you rely on public transportation, day to day.
Manual is fun, until you spend a couple of hours, or more, commuting every day.
Yeah, but the others should know that you rely on public transportation, day to day.
Manual is fun, until you spend a couple of hours, or more, commuting every day.
nospeed411
Apr 21, 06:57 PM
Ok all I want to know is why the hell is Al Freaktard still allowed to breathe my air???
lordonuthin
Dec 22, 12:00 AM
well today (12.22.09) i hit 3 million. so that was only like 27 days for the last million. i'm happy with that. just gotta keep it going
I was trying to watch when you hit 3 mil but you beat me to it, congrats!
I was trying to watch when you hit 3 mil but you beat me to it, congrats!
LaDirection
Apr 12, 10:25 PM
Wow, looks like the rumours WERE true after all! Apple killed the Pro of Final Cut Pro. That guy who turned the much admired iMovie into garbage has done it again. All they had to do was rewrite the engine with 64 bit support, had proper file handling, rendering titling tools amongst other necessary pro features and keep the same F*&$#@*&& interface as pro users of ANY pro software don't want to re-learn an interface for no reason! It takes YEARS before you really know a software under the hood.
We'll now see FCPx turn into a hit with amateurs and will be completely abandoned by pro users who will all return to avid.
We'll now see FCPx turn into a hit with amateurs and will be completely abandoned by pro users who will all return to avid.
quadgirl
Sep 1, 02:15 PM
At WWDC, Apple mentioned one of Leopard's features - 64 bit application support. Let's fast forward to Leopard's release day and look at Apple's line. I'm guessing that all all their machines will have 64-bit processors, but surely the difference in processors used in the Macbook, Macbook Pro, the iMac, and the mini, surely can't be just speed, and all using the Merom? The iMac will have Conroe, maybe an E6600.
Surreal
May 2, 06:00 PM
This will be interesting. The issue that I see concerns ancillary data. I really dislike how the iphone handles application data, but it is--at the very least--consistent. You delete the app, you delete the data.
I haven't had the occasion to see how MAS works with deleting, but I can't imagine it doing anything similar, and that creates a rift, in my opinion.
I haven't had the occasion to see how MAS works with deleting, but I can't imagine it doing anything similar, and that creates a rift, in my opinion.
alfagta
Apr 1, 04:50 PM
Basically. Now they just need to polish what they gave us. It's honestly a lot though. I wouldn't feel ripped off for them charging money for it.
Almost all of the Applications have been enhanced, autosave, Launchpad, Mission Control, Versions, resume, Multitouch gestures, full screen apps and the Mac App Store.
You feel like it�s a new experience? So much better?
Almost all of the Applications have been enhanced, autosave, Launchpad, Mission Control, Versions, resume, Multitouch gestures, full screen apps and the Mac App Store.
You feel like it�s a new experience? So much better?
Dunepilot
Nov 15, 08:25 AM
They're going to have to go multi-thread capable, demands on consumer software is only going to increase as we take what is cutting edge today and integrate it into everyday life.
They're going to need every ounce of grunt they can find. Especially when HD video content becomes the norm - encoding that takes some serious brawn and consumers aren't willing to wait for their results, they don't understand the processes behind it like Pros do, consumers want it all done right now so the quicker we get software over to multi-thread aware the better.
Yes, I hope they do start to properly multithread consumer apps, as in many ways this is overdue for Mac users (anyone remember the 533MHz dual-G4 powermac?!).
One thing that's puzzled me for ages is the fact that the encoding speed in iTunes fell off when I switched from encoding CDs as mp3 to AAC files.
If I'm not mistaken AAC-encoding is done on only one of my 867MHz G4 processors, not both, as was the case for mp3-encoding? I'm sure I read that somewhere.
They're going to need every ounce of grunt they can find. Especially when HD video content becomes the norm - encoding that takes some serious brawn and consumers aren't willing to wait for their results, they don't understand the processes behind it like Pros do, consumers want it all done right now so the quicker we get software over to multi-thread aware the better.
Yes, I hope they do start to properly multithread consumer apps, as in many ways this is overdue for Mac users (anyone remember the 533MHz dual-G4 powermac?!).
One thing that's puzzled me for ages is the fact that the encoding speed in iTunes fell off when I switched from encoding CDs as mp3 to AAC files.
If I'm not mistaken AAC-encoding is done on only one of my 867MHz G4 processors, not both, as was the case for mp3-encoding? I'm sure I read that somewhere.
skunk
Mar 21, 05:05 PM
I think this would be conterproductive to the end result though.Oh, the Humanity!
syklee26
Sep 7, 10:34 AM
here's a direct quote from apple.com store
"You'll get one main .Mac subscriber account with 1GB of storage space and four additional .Mac accounts with 250MB of storage space each"
so still a decent deal compared to apple price
well the problem is that sub accounts cannot exist without the main account and main account has to be renewed every year. so this essentially means i cannot use family pack by myself for 5 years.
"You'll get one main .Mac subscriber account with 1GB of storage space and four additional .Mac accounts with 250MB of storage space each"
so still a decent deal compared to apple price
well the problem is that sub accounts cannot exist without the main account and main account has to be renewed every year. so this essentially means i cannot use family pack by myself for 5 years.
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.
skunk
Mar 21, 05:39 PM
Loyalists blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy. .... sorry, Tripoli. :oI think that's the prevailing water.
kretzy
Aug 7, 03:52 AM
Any Aussies staying up? I think i will have to.
I'm still considering my options. I'd like to stay up but it starts around 3am here and I have to be at uni by 10am and Tuesdays are my fullest day. I might try to get to sleep earlier than usual around 12 and then get up for it.
Stupid timezones.
I'm still considering my options. I'd like to stay up but it starts around 3am here and I have to be at uni by 10am and Tuesdays are my fullest day. I might try to get to sleep earlier than usual around 12 and then get up for it.
Stupid timezones.
celticpride678
Apr 3, 12:51 AM
??? My 25gb partition was clean and blank when I installed Lion DP 1 and I think that's the case for most others as well. I'm not sure where you heard that, if I'm understanding you correctly.
It worked for me too on DP1. On DP2, I had to install Snow Leopard first.
It worked for me too on DP1. On DP2, I had to install Snow Leopard first.
BRLawyer
Nov 16, 09:36 AM
Well, with the Intel Core roadmap for 2016 possibly getting up to close to 300 heterogeneous cores per motherboard/PC, certainly Windows is out of the race but OS XX 20.x will have to have evolved to probably DAML/OWL Semantic Web Ontology based, with System Strategy and System Policy Reasoners, i.e. a Cognitive OS with a flexible Operating Envelope. I think that would definitely make Safari snappier!
Well, this reminds me of that presentation given by Steve Jobs (on the new G4s, I think), where he said, for a certain specific technology ("latent semantic" or whatever) that:
"I have no idea what that is; but trust me, it works..!" :p
Well, this reminds me of that presentation given by Steve Jobs (on the new G4s, I think), where he said, for a certain specific technology ("latent semantic" or whatever) that:
"I have no idea what that is; but trust me, it works..!" :p
No comments:
Post a Comment