mc68k
Oct 5, 11:46 AM
way to go dude!
BRLawyer
Jul 19, 04:58 PM
The great numbers shown today just prove that this is the perfect moment to bury MS once and for all in the OS war...OS X is by far the best system, and Longsight is still more than 6 months away...Microsoft is doomed.
Consultant
Apr 26, 01:37 PM
Actually, it would 1-Click ;)
In formal writing, one should always write out the words for all numbers one through ten.
"1 click" would be unacceptable in proper English writing.
Therefore, Apple should have done one-click instead of 1-click to avoid licensing issues: ;)
Amazon filed a patent infringement lawsuit in October 1999 in response to Barnes & Noble offering a 1-Click ordering option called "Express Lane." After reviewing the evidence, a judge issued a preliminary injunction ordering Barnes & Noble to stop offering Express Lane until the case was settled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click
Apple should get an injunction against App Store knockoffs.
In formal writing, one should always write out the words for all numbers one through ten.
"1 click" would be unacceptable in proper English writing.
Therefore, Apple should have done one-click instead of 1-click to avoid licensing issues: ;)
Amazon filed a patent infringement lawsuit in October 1999 in response to Barnes & Noble offering a 1-Click ordering option called "Express Lane." After reviewing the evidence, a judge issued a preliminary injunction ordering Barnes & Noble to stop offering Express Lane until the case was settled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click
Apple should get an injunction against App Store knockoffs.
TheFlashGuy
Jun 22, 04:28 PM
To paraphrase - "It's just a giant iPad!"
valanchan
Apr 12, 10:12 PM
Just read something today to the effect that Peter Jackson is following James Cameron's lead and shooting 48fps on the "Hobbit"; gambling that enough digital theaters will upgrade to 48fps by the time the "film" arrives in a couple of years time. Guess that is the beginning of the end of the "film" look for at least action movies.
This is so that each eye receives 24fps for 3d. So finally 3d will now look like a 3d "movie" rather than a 3d flip book.
This is so that each eye receives 24fps for 3d. So finally 3d will now look like a 3d "movie" rather than a 3d flip book.
skinniezinho
Nov 27, 07:38 AM
Where did you buy that watch and for how much? I really like it :o
I bought it on a friend's store@45eur but it is available @50eur on almost every watch store.
Check it here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtSP6Qj8PDk).
I bought it on a friend's store@45eur but it is available @50eur on almost every watch store.
Check it here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtSP6Qj8PDk).
EagerDragon
Nov 16, 12:53 PM
Previous question: How hard could it be to take advangate of the multi-cores.
The first thing is that it depends on what you are starting with. If you have zero code out there, you can come up with a nice design for your program that takes advantage of as many cores as you throw at it. If on the other hand you have large chunks of legacy code that was written in the time of single cores, it may be close to a re-write to fully take advantage of the hardware. In some cases it will be easier in some cases to throw the old code away.
But some of it is imagination, if you can look at a problem and the solution you orginaly came up with, and using your imagination look at the problem at hand in inovative ways, parts of the programs could be re-written to take advantage of the hardware and other parts can be left alone (for the short term). This is an incremental step, you gain X% in one area and little to nothing in another area. The key is to determine what your program spends most of it time doing and re-write/re-design that section of the code for the biggest short-term gains.
I remeber working in assembler and selecting the correct combination of instructions based on their function and the number of CPU cycles it took to execute each instruction. Sometimes a set of 12 instructions was faster than a different set of 8 instructions in accomplishing the same result. Use your imagination and look at the problem from a different angle. If your brain only sees a number of serialized steps, you won't be able to come up with anything that takes advange of the hardware.
What you start with (old code) and your imagination can get you there quicker or slower.
Short answer: It depends.
The first thing is that it depends on what you are starting with. If you have zero code out there, you can come up with a nice design for your program that takes advantage of as many cores as you throw at it. If on the other hand you have large chunks of legacy code that was written in the time of single cores, it may be close to a re-write to fully take advantage of the hardware. In some cases it will be easier in some cases to throw the old code away.
But some of it is imagination, if you can look at a problem and the solution you orginaly came up with, and using your imagination look at the problem at hand in inovative ways, parts of the programs could be re-written to take advantage of the hardware and other parts can be left alone (for the short term). This is an incremental step, you gain X% in one area and little to nothing in another area. The key is to determine what your program spends most of it time doing and re-write/re-design that section of the code for the biggest short-term gains.
I remeber working in assembler and selecting the correct combination of instructions based on their function and the number of CPU cycles it took to execute each instruction. Sometimes a set of 12 instructions was faster than a different set of 8 instructions in accomplishing the same result. Use your imagination and look at the problem from a different angle. If your brain only sees a number of serialized steps, you won't be able to come up with anything that takes advange of the hardware.
What you start with (old code) and your imagination can get you there quicker or slower.
Short answer: It depends.
Greebazoid
Oct 23, 08:34 AM
Am I alone in wishing there was more effort in getting universal binaries of MS Office, photoshop and all the other stuff that slows even the fastest Mac down rather than all the effort spent in playing the Speculation Game?
Yeah, probably I am.
(I love my MBPro)
Yeah, probably I am.
(I love my MBPro)
foodle
Apr 2, 09:09 PM
have one but that commercial makes me want to puke. Once you use one and realize it's limitations, it's not so magical. It's a fun consumption device which you can get some work done on, but without real multitasking, it's lack of real technology actually hinders and isn't so magical.
Wow, wait till those doctors find out they've been using pretend technology :eek:
Wow, wait till those doctors find out they've been using pretend technology :eek:
liketom
Apr 10, 03:45 AM
I think that apple is doing ok , think i read it in another thread "Apple is the Porsche and Dell is the Ford of computers " i dont know about the rest of you but i like to have something that most people do not have or afford for that matter , call me snobby but i'd rather have something that works time and time again then to bimber around trying to get that dam Graphics card to work with XP.
If apple go main market stream then i think we would be in trouble then ! Cheap Hardware = Problems
tom
Have a Look at my NEW apple AD View new apple ad (http://www.liketom.co.uk/iwantthatpowermac.mov)
If apple go main market stream then i think we would be in trouble then ! Cheap Hardware = Problems
tom
Have a Look at my NEW apple AD View new apple ad (http://www.liketom.co.uk/iwantthatpowermac.mov)
Unspeaked
Sep 1, 02:05 PM
How big and small an iMac would consumers actually want? 50"? 10"?
Will we eventually see an ad with Verne Troyer and Yao Ming working side-by-side on their big and small desktop Macintoshes?
I'd take a 72" iMac.
Like some said earlier, anything above 23"s would be prfect as a TV replacement.
You have the remote, the wi-fi, the DVD (possibly Blu Ray) player - who wouldn't want a 72" LCD TV that does all THAT and can also be used as a computer??
Will we eventually see an ad with Verne Troyer and Yao Ming working side-by-side on their big and small desktop Macintoshes?
I'd take a 72" iMac.
Like some said earlier, anything above 23"s would be prfect as a TV replacement.
You have the remote, the wi-fi, the DVD (possibly Blu Ray) player - who wouldn't want a 72" LCD TV that does all THAT and can also be used as a computer??
Glideslope
Mar 24, 03:50 PM
next step amd cpus
Come on Charlie, clean up your act. No AMD CPU's. :apple:
Come on Charlie, clean up your act. No AMD CPU's. :apple:
SirOmega
Aug 24, 11:21 PM
Yeah! I was looking at a bunch of minis for a rendering farm, and given the SSE performance improvement over the yonahs (the Pentium-M series have been weak in FP traditionally) this should be fun.
Luph67
Apr 2, 07:36 PM
My god that was so much better than the ridiculous iPhone ads.
twoodcc
Oct 23, 08:38 AM
well i hope it happens this week. but i'll believe it when i see it
EagerDragon
Nov 16, 12:53 PM
Previous question: How hard could it be to take advangate of the multi-cores.
The first thing is that it depends on what you are starting with. If you have zero code out there, you can come up with a nice design for your program that takes advantage of as many cores as you throw at it. If on the other hand you have large chunks of legacy code that was written in the time of single cores, it may be close to a re-write to fully take advantage of the hardware. In some cases it will be easier in some cases to throw the old code away.
But some of it is imagination, if you can look at a problem and the solution you orginaly came up with, and using your imagination look at the problem at hand in inovative ways, parts of the programs could be re-written to take advantage of the hardware and other parts can be left alone (for the short term). This is an incremental step, you gain X% in one area and little to nothing in another area. The key is to determine what your program spends most of it time doing and re-write/re-design that section of the code for the biggest short-term gains.
I remeber working in assembler and selecting the correct combination of instructions based on their function and the number of CPU cycles it took to execute each instruction. Sometimes a set of 12 instructions was faster than a different set of 8 instructions in accomplishing the same result. Use your imagination and look at the problem from a different angle. If your brain only sees a number of serialized steps, you won't be able to come up with anything that takes advange of the hardware.
What you start with (old code) and your imagination can get you there quicker or slower.
Short answer: It depends.
The first thing is that it depends on what you are starting with. If you have zero code out there, you can come up with a nice design for your program that takes advantage of as many cores as you throw at it. If on the other hand you have large chunks of legacy code that was written in the time of single cores, it may be close to a re-write to fully take advantage of the hardware. In some cases it will be easier in some cases to throw the old code away.
But some of it is imagination, if you can look at a problem and the solution you orginaly came up with, and using your imagination look at the problem at hand in inovative ways, parts of the programs could be re-written to take advantage of the hardware and other parts can be left alone (for the short term). This is an incremental step, you gain X% in one area and little to nothing in another area. The key is to determine what your program spends most of it time doing and re-write/re-design that section of the code for the biggest short-term gains.
I remeber working in assembler and selecting the correct combination of instructions based on their function and the number of CPU cycles it took to execute each instruction. Sometimes a set of 12 instructions was faster than a different set of 8 instructions in accomplishing the same result. Use your imagination and look at the problem from a different angle. If your brain only sees a number of serialized steps, you won't be able to come up with anything that takes advange of the hardware.
What you start with (old code) and your imagination can get you there quicker or slower.
Short answer: It depends.
Edge100
Jan 2, 09:42 AM
Sorry if someone else has mentioned this already, but I also expect Apple to announce (if not release) a new version of Logic, either at MWSF or at NAMM, which starts about a week later.
The latter is more likely, since its a music industry event, but one way or another, Logic is due for an upgrade. Seriously!
Perhaps not of interest to everyone, but important for the musicians here...
The latter is more likely, since its a music industry event, but one way or another, Logic is due for an upgrade. Seriously!
Perhaps not of interest to everyone, but important for the musicians here...
swingerofbirch
Aug 29, 03:24 PM
I also think that making the mini bigger makes sense. I mean the Cube was a wonderful design and a few times larger than the mini.
Both of them have external power supplies, which from an esthetic point of view isn't the most pleasing. A larger design could potentially include an interal power supply, although it might make it a good deal nosier, I'm not sure.
Both of them have external power supplies, which from an esthetic point of view isn't the most pleasing. A larger design could potentially include an interal power supply, although it might make it a good deal nosier, I'm not sure.
Danksi
Dec 31, 12:54 AM
What do I see the iTV for? Streaming media, a glorified IP TV box, an easier way to bring the iPod to the living room. I really don't see it doing anything else. I'm hoping that I'm wrong.
This is how iTV was originally presented, at least from what I recall, accessing your iTunes/iPhoto content on a TV. There's a hint there may be more, but I don't think so.
My interest is the convenience of not having to plug my iBook into the TV and then mount the media drive inside the MacPro located upstairs, to watch some family movies or something I've downloaded. This certainly isn't convenient for the rest of the family.
I've been shoving everything Music/Video related into iTunes, which has made access loads easier/quicker from both the iBook and my wife's Windows XP laptop (using iTunes) - but it's still not on the TV, without cables etc (and no remote)
Unfortunately I've also noticed that not all movies/video-podcasts are shared properly, some are fixed by re-importing, some by re-tagging with 'lostify', but others are stubborn - this 'bug' needs fixing!
This is how iTV was originally presented, at least from what I recall, accessing your iTunes/iPhoto content on a TV. There's a hint there may be more, but I don't think so.
My interest is the convenience of not having to plug my iBook into the TV and then mount the media drive inside the MacPro located upstairs, to watch some family movies or something I've downloaded. This certainly isn't convenient for the rest of the family.
I've been shoving everything Music/Video related into iTunes, which has made access loads easier/quicker from both the iBook and my wife's Windows XP laptop (using iTunes) - but it's still not on the TV, without cables etc (and no remote)
Unfortunately I've also noticed that not all movies/video-podcasts are shared properly, some are fixed by re-importing, some by re-tagging with 'lostify', but others are stubborn - this 'bug' needs fixing!
Eraserhead
Mar 20, 06:22 PM
What does homeopathy achieve?
The placebo effect.
You can't even test homeopathy scientifically against a placebo because the placebo would be identical to the remedy!
The reason you test against the placebo rather than no medicine at all is that the placebo effect is non-trivial.
The placebo effect.
You can't even test homeopathy scientifically against a placebo because the placebo would be identical to the remedy!
The reason you test against the placebo rather than no medicine at all is that the placebo effect is non-trivial.
phlavor
Apr 19, 01:35 PM
I just hope that the SSD option is more affordable. For me the top chip on the 27inch is a no-brainer but the SSD turns a $2200 computer into a $2950 computer. Hell, in San Francisco I have to tack 9.5% tax on that too.
cbrain
Jan 12, 03:05 AM
I'm not that keen on the name "MacBook Air" personally.
mogwia
Oct 24, 06:25 AM
america down too!! JEEEEEE :) :confused: :eek:
Gatesbasher
Mar 24, 01:48 PM
You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)....
I for one misunderstood you too. Thanks for the elucidation.
I know there's no hope for anyone willing to listen to 128,000 bps noise, or worse yet pay money for it. I don't know about 320k, but my feeling on the subject of compression is this:
I was one of the people convinced by the propaganda that led to the DVD Audio and SACD fiasco. I have since done a lot more reading and am convinced by the math that CDs are about as good as there is any reason for them to be, human hearing being what it is. (I always thought increasing the sampling rate was stupid.)
As far as Apple Lossless and other codecs of the same type�if they can compress video signals losslessly to 2% of their original size for DVDs, why should I doubt you can compress music to 40 or 50%? The thing about going below that is, maybe at first listen, the difference doesn't leap out at you�but maybe it would with extended exposure, and with better equipment than you're using right now. What you're assuming is that you're never going to have better equipment, and that "small" differences in quality are inconsequential.
My problem with that is that then you've been set up for the next decrease in quality, and the one after that, and the one after that. Eventually you're buying 128,000 bps tracks and making fun of "audiophiles" who can tell the difference, and then one of the true triumphs of 20th Century technology�really good audio reproduction�is lost.
Video that can't be told from the real thing is never going to happen in my lifetime, but with sound we were there�and then threw it away!
I for one misunderstood you too. Thanks for the elucidation.
I know there's no hope for anyone willing to listen to 128,000 bps noise, or worse yet pay money for it. I don't know about 320k, but my feeling on the subject of compression is this:
I was one of the people convinced by the propaganda that led to the DVD Audio and SACD fiasco. I have since done a lot more reading and am convinced by the math that CDs are about as good as there is any reason for them to be, human hearing being what it is. (I always thought increasing the sampling rate was stupid.)
As far as Apple Lossless and other codecs of the same type�if they can compress video signals losslessly to 2% of their original size for DVDs, why should I doubt you can compress music to 40 or 50%? The thing about going below that is, maybe at first listen, the difference doesn't leap out at you�but maybe it would with extended exposure, and with better equipment than you're using right now. What you're assuming is that you're never going to have better equipment, and that "small" differences in quality are inconsequential.
My problem with that is that then you've been set up for the next decrease in quality, and the one after that, and the one after that. Eventually you're buying 128,000 bps tracks and making fun of "audiophiles" who can tell the difference, and then one of the true triumphs of 20th Century technology�really good audio reproduction�is lost.
Video that can't be told from the real thing is never going to happen in my lifetime, but with sound we were there�and then threw it away!
