Glideslope
Sep 15, 09:45 AM
When will it stop??
Jan 2011. :apple:
Jan 2011. :apple:
DavidEther
Apr 10, 02:03 PM
I read about the new iCal before updating, and actually saved the old iCal from DP1 and copied it over after updating to DP2. It worked just fine, though it's interesting to note that the 'ugly' DP2 version was much smaller in size than the original DP1 version. DP1 iCal was over 40mb, while the new & ugly iCal was only around 13mb.
Oh well, I still happily sacrificed the extra space for a more usable interface.
Oh well, I still happily sacrificed the extra space for a more usable interface.
bartelby
Nov 28, 01:44 PM
Thats awesome.....They attempted to give me a ticket for doing about 100mph in a residential zone a few years ago...was actually doing it too.. When they tried to speak to me I pretended to not know english( handed him a PA license) I kept speaking to him in pig latin and pretending I didn't understand...meanwhile he was ready haul us off to the Klink...LOL He eventually got so pissed off he got in his cruiser and left. What I didn't know was they filed a complaint with the rental car agency and we where banned from renting from them again...oooohhhh whoptie do da:D:D:D The things a bottle of good tequila will make you do.
You almost sound proud of this!
:rolleyes:
You almost sound proud of this!
:rolleyes:
bobsentell
May 2, 05:44 PM
iOS style multitasking features (benefits) are indeed in Lion.
Applications written for Lion can "suspend and resume" without having to "save and close" documents. The reason the little light below running apps on the Dock was removed is that "running" is now more of a decision between the App and OS -- not so much the user. (APP - "Am I idle right now? Can I resume from this point very quickly? If so, I'll just suspend myself till the user or an event wakes me back up. No need to burn RAM or CPU, the user won't even notice I'm not here.)
There is no reason with modern computer architecture for humans to do memory management by getting involved with which programs are actually physically in memory/active. We have 7200rpm SATA3 or SSD drives, multicore processors with Gigahertz speeds, and Gigabytes of RAM...
The way we interact with Multitasking in Windows 7 and OS X Snow Leopard is based on the hardware limitations imposed by 640K RAM, 4.7 Megahertz single core processor, and Floppy Disks. Apple took the first brave step away from that with iOS. It's good to see it moving forward in Lion.
But my iPhone is far more limited than my first Windows PC in that regard. Even with Windows 95 I could go from one app to another while letting the other on load in the background. iOS freezes everything. If I want a video to upload on Facebook, I have no choice but to keep the app open until it's done. On my PC, I can start the upload and then move on to other things while the process is completing.
I find moving to non-true multitasking as a step backward, not a step forward. As you said, out systems capabilites are able to do so much more. I can be playing a computer game, hit the Windows key, and open a media player and never see a drop in performance. Why limit your computer to one task at a time? Kind of defeats the point of multi-core processors.
Applications written for Lion can "suspend and resume" without having to "save and close" documents. The reason the little light below running apps on the Dock was removed is that "running" is now more of a decision between the App and OS -- not so much the user. (APP - "Am I idle right now? Can I resume from this point very quickly? If so, I'll just suspend myself till the user or an event wakes me back up. No need to burn RAM or CPU, the user won't even notice I'm not here.)
There is no reason with modern computer architecture for humans to do memory management by getting involved with which programs are actually physically in memory/active. We have 7200rpm SATA3 or SSD drives, multicore processors with Gigahertz speeds, and Gigabytes of RAM...
The way we interact with Multitasking in Windows 7 and OS X Snow Leopard is based on the hardware limitations imposed by 640K RAM, 4.7 Megahertz single core processor, and Floppy Disks. Apple took the first brave step away from that with iOS. It's good to see it moving forward in Lion.
But my iPhone is far more limited than my first Windows PC in that regard. Even with Windows 95 I could go from one app to another while letting the other on load in the background. iOS freezes everything. If I want a video to upload on Facebook, I have no choice but to keep the app open until it's done. On my PC, I can start the upload and then move on to other things while the process is completing.
I find moving to non-true multitasking as a step backward, not a step forward. As you said, out systems capabilites are able to do so much more. I can be playing a computer game, hit the Windows key, and open a media player and never see a drop in performance. Why limit your computer to one task at a time? Kind of defeats the point of multi-core processors.
ntrigue
Jan 12, 03:00 PM
Why did everyone jump to the conclusion that its offical name is "MacBook Air"?
What is air-like about a small tablet laptop? This is obviously a proliferation on the 'world without wires' concept...
iTunes Rentals ... snatch them out of the thin air to your new AppleTV is much more logical.
What is air-like about a small tablet laptop? This is obviously a proliferation on the 'world without wires' concept...
iTunes Rentals ... snatch them out of the thin air to your new AppleTV is much more logical.
Corban987
Apr 26, 11:56 PM
When I think of app store I always think of apples application store. The icon for it advertised on TV or websites says appstore, I think Amazon and Windows are trying to use Apples success on this.
mahonmeister
Nov 29, 07:42 PM
I'll speak loud and clear:
DVR
iTunes Store can't now nor will it likely ever replace Dish Network for me. Just let me record my shows either directly with iTV or via something connected to it. I hope when this is released, HD DVD and Blu-ray make there way into Macs.
DVR
iTunes Store can't now nor will it likely ever replace Dish Network for me. Just let me record my shows either directly with iTV or via something connected to it. I hope when this is released, HD DVD and Blu-ray make there way into Macs.
quagmire
Apr 9, 04:45 PM
I know how to drive a manual, but it has been ages since last time I have been in one and I wouldn't want to get in a high powered car with a manual where breaking anything will cost $$$$ due to my lack of experience in one.
emotion
Nov 28, 03:58 AM
It's clear Apple need a "consumer" (ie. Dell level) level monitor. It would make sense, as a 17" is seen as too small by most, to release a 19" model (a size that is differentiated from the current line up and in colours that match the white and black consumer models).
Personally I don't see Apple doing this soon despite this rumour so I'm getting one of these to match my black macbook:
http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/113148/rb/23351541263
Personally I don't see Apple doing this soon despite this rumour so I'm getting one of these to match my black macbook:
http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/113148/rb/23351541263
newrigel
Nov 16, 11:03 PM
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.
CONTENT CREATION PRO'S will see the benefit! Like DAW's host running multiple plugins and virtual instruments etc. Video guy's that are rendering in the background while doing a file format conversion task while @ the same time doing a cut copy paste edit on some video... Any processes that are CONCURRENT! THESE are the things that will take advantage of multiple cores... the kids on myspace farting around on the net emailing and such are really useless for multiple cores and us pro guy's NEED this multitasking power... BRING IT ON!
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.
CONTENT CREATION PRO'S will see the benefit! Like DAW's host running multiple plugins and virtual instruments etc. Video guy's that are rendering in the background while doing a file format conversion task while @ the same time doing a cut copy paste edit on some video... Any processes that are CONCURRENT! THESE are the things that will take advantage of multiple cores... the kids on myspace farting around on the net emailing and such are really useless for multiple cores and us pro guy's NEED this multitasking power... BRING IT ON!
gkarris
Nov 27, 09:04 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
twoodcc
Nov 9, 04:03 AM
Well it is not supported, same as running GPU on Linux... Only difference is that they are so many doing so that they figured it out...
it's not supported?
it's not supported?
ViciousShadow21
Apr 17, 02:22 AM
yep
you should have made this a poll website
you should have made this a poll website
pjgoel
Nov 29, 05:58 PM
With a hard disk in it. iTV will not require a computer - will give you internet access on your TV. Dock the iPod, and allow you to buy directly movies, songs & content. I.e. without streaming. Direct download through a Wifi intenet connection. Could even have the ability to stream from the internet - I.e. cable, etc.. coupled with a DVR for recording. Would be amazing if it could do all of the above.
BigBeast
Apr 19, 07:57 PM
Large SSD's are just too expensive and often times not big enough. And you only get a finite number of writes on them before they're garbage.
While technically correct, you should provide context.
While SSDs DO have a finite number of write available, an SSD that's 256 GB (a modest drive size) with 10,000 writes = 2,560,000 GB of writing capacity (or 2.56 * 10^6 ;))
That means you could write 100 GB of data PER DAY for slightly over 70 YEARS!
Feel free to be amazed. :D
While technically correct, you should provide context.
While SSDs DO have a finite number of write available, an SSD that's 256 GB (a modest drive size) with 10,000 writes = 2,560,000 GB of writing capacity (or 2.56 * 10^6 ;))
That means you could write 100 GB of data PER DAY for slightly over 70 YEARS!
Feel free to be amazed. :D
QuarterSwede
Apr 10, 06:57 PM
And two-seaters?? :eek: Well, let's not go there.
Miata's are actually very good driving cars.
Miata's are actually very good driving cars.
KingYaba
Jul 14, 11:56 AM
PS3 Consoles will cost 500-600 bucks. 400 bucks cheaper than a blu ray dvd player :) So I bet people could buy that as an alternative to read your blu ray movies. Plus I bet gaming on it will be totally awesome.
AidenShaw
Aug 31, 09:55 AM
What makes you think that it "can't run software"? Current 32bit CPU's will be usable for years to come.
The worry is that in a few years interesting software applications will only come in x64 - companies will drop the fat binaries due to the expenses associated with multiple versions of the software.
This is already happening on the Windows side - several major apps will only be x64 in their next versions.
So, not only can the 64-bit chip be significantly faster when in 64-bit mode - it is more future-proof.
The worry is that in a few years interesting software applications will only come in x64 - companies will drop the fat binaries due to the expenses associated with multiple versions of the software.
This is already happening on the Windows side - several major apps will only be x64 in their next versions.
So, not only can the 64-bit chip be significantly faster when in 64-bit mode - it is more future-proof.
JoEw
Jun 22, 05:07 PM
touch screen is usefull for mobile devices because you don't have any place to put a screen, mouse and keyboard. But desktops you have room for keyboard and mic so i don't see this happening in imacs.
Steve said a D8, he believes that there will always be a place for desktops but a majority of our tasks will be done from tablets or mobile devices that are touch screen enabled.
And there are just some things that require keyboard and mice! steve acknowledges that and so does the rest of the world.
Steve said a D8, he believes that there will always be a place for desktops but a majority of our tasks will be done from tablets or mobile devices that are touch screen enabled.
And there are just some things that require keyboard and mice! steve acknowledges that and so does the rest of the world.
twoodcc
Oct 5, 02:22 PM
thanks. when it gets colder here, i'll start doing the bigadv units again. then the points should really add up. if they keep the units going.
way to go dude!
hey, congrats to you for 6 million!!
way to go dude!
hey, congrats to you for 6 million!!
torn
Oct 2, 10:29 AM
Actually I kind of like my gel case. It perfectly fits and makes the back look great. I intended to wait for the belkin's clear hard case to come out, but now I'm going to order the full set of this gel case and it's still cheaper.
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/longasau/IMG_0357.jpg
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/longasau/IMG_0358.jpg
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/longasau/IMG_0357.jpg
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/longasau/IMG_0358.jpg
tkermit
Apr 2, 07:02 PM
Marketing geniuses :)
Popeye206
May 2, 05:30 PM
I got a another newbie question
I am planning on moving out of Windows (7) and onto MAC OS X, but I want to wait for Lion since its close to a finished product. Now my question is, if Lion comes out, would that mean every Mac (Mac Pro, iMac, iMac mini, Macbook, MB Pros, etc) would have Lion installed/packaged or is there a specific mac that will have Lion on its first day and the other macs would have to wait???
I wouldn't worry about the OS... all new Macs will run Lion and depending on the specifics, you'll probably get the upgrade for free or very cheap. Also, unless Apple chances something, past upgrades can be easily installed on multiple machines. Where MS has Windows licensed to a CPU, Apple does not care. They don't make that much money on the OS sales, they make the money on the hardware.
So, if you're going to wait for anything, I would wait for the World Wide Developers Conference in June and see what's announced there, then make your purchase. Then you'll have a good idea of what's new and be ready for Lion.
Welcome aboard!
I am planning on moving out of Windows (7) and onto MAC OS X, but I want to wait for Lion since its close to a finished product. Now my question is, if Lion comes out, would that mean every Mac (Mac Pro, iMac, iMac mini, Macbook, MB Pros, etc) would have Lion installed/packaged or is there a specific mac that will have Lion on its first day and the other macs would have to wait???
I wouldn't worry about the OS... all new Macs will run Lion and depending on the specifics, you'll probably get the upgrade for free or very cheap. Also, unless Apple chances something, past upgrades can be easily installed on multiple machines. Where MS has Windows licensed to a CPU, Apple does not care. They don't make that much money on the OS sales, they make the money on the hardware.
So, if you're going to wait for anything, I would wait for the World Wide Developers Conference in June and see what's announced there, then make your purchase. Then you'll have a good idea of what's new and be ready for Lion.
Welcome aboard!
rezenclowd3
Jan 30, 01:06 AM
^^^ I never got to do THAT in my Quattro. I'm quite jealous. I had planned on going to Tahoe....but as usual things in life happen. Instead I got to drag around 300lbs of extra weight and see how bad the 50/50 split pushes in AutoX events;) (to be fair, as there is no RWD Audi, the FWD pushes just as bad and is not any quicker or better handling on asphalt) I sure do miss the nicer interior of the Audi:rolleyes:
No comments:
Post a Comment