cjkihlbom
Aug 15, 11:54 AM
I'm so glad I ordered the 3 Ghz, almost as fast as the Quad G5 in Photoshop is insane!
steadysignal
Apr 11, 12:22 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I dont want to wait :(
who does? but it will be worth it...
I dont want to wait :(
who does? but it will be worth it...
dscuber9000
Mar 19, 09:31 PM
Military operations in Iraq have ended, and Obama campaigned on agreeing the Afghanistan War... so I don't know what you're talking about, honestly.
And I think it is pretty rich for a conservative to bring up his failing to close Guantanamo Bay when it is the conservatives who are trying so hard to keep it open. :rolleyes:
And yes, I completely disagree with what we're doing in Libya. But I don't think putting someone in office who would cut pretty much everything the government does is the right answer. :rolleyes:
And I think it is pretty rich for a conservative to bring up his failing to close Guantanamo Bay when it is the conservatives who are trying so hard to keep it open. :rolleyes:
And yes, I completely disagree with what we're doing in Libya. But I don't think putting someone in office who would cut pretty much everything the government does is the right answer. :rolleyes:
LagunaSol
Apr 6, 04:27 PM
1. Have you seen honeycomb?
I have.
Its a work of art. "Work of art???" Kind of like Dogs Playing Poker? :confused:
5. PAUSE. Games apple does not have more games then Android. Android has Emulators which allow it to play NES, GBA, and countless others. Do to this android has tons more games.
LOL WUT? You're honestly going to count emulated games (pirated in almost all cases) as Android games?
Wow.
I have.
Its a work of art. "Work of art???" Kind of like Dogs Playing Poker? :confused:
5. PAUSE. Games apple does not have more games then Android. Android has Emulators which allow it to play NES, GBA, and countless others. Do to this android has tons more games.
LOL WUT? You're honestly going to count emulated games (pirated in almost all cases) as Android games?
Wow.
Popeye206
Apr 19, 02:10 PM
Is that your vetted legal opinion?
We have a lot of couch lawyers in this group. :rolleyes:
We have a lot of couch lawyers in this group. :rolleyes:
bobsentell
Apr 7, 11:32 PM
Meh. Makes room for HP's inventory. You know, the company that sells more computers than any other company. :D
Scottsdale
Apr 6, 10:59 AM
I am shocked that anyone finds this as a positive.
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.
I find this completely backwards from Apple's current position on both CPU and graphics, and I don't think anyone would end up with a faster or better 13" MBA than the current generation. Apple would certainly have to bring back the backlit keyboard and introduce Thunderbolt to sucker anyone into buying such inferior junk! I would recommend people buy the current generation on clearance rather than lose performance everywhere like this. If this is the chip Apple uses in the 13" MBA, prepare for a big drop in capabilities!
I am still in shock anyone finds this a positive? Have you all read the clock speed? The facts about the chip and IGP in ultra low voltage variants?
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.
I find this completely backwards from Apple's current position on both CPU and graphics, and I don't think anyone would end up with a faster or better 13" MBA than the current generation. Apple would certainly have to bring back the backlit keyboard and introduce Thunderbolt to sucker anyone into buying such inferior junk! I would recommend people buy the current generation on clearance rather than lose performance everywhere like this. If this is the chip Apple uses in the 13" MBA, prepare for a big drop in capabilities!
I am still in shock anyone finds this a positive? Have you all read the clock speed? The facts about the chip and IGP in ultra low voltage variants?
happyduck42
Apr 19, 02:08 PM
Alright, I was originally going to take Apple's side on this, since I could clearly see it looks a lot like iOS, but having looked at Samsung's F700, I don' think Apple has any right to sue..
Although the Samsung F700 has very simple icons, Apple clearly has the same placement of icons, even looking at the bottom you find the four dock like icons..
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9559/samsungf700cellular.jpg
I'd say that Apple copied Samsung :P.. Honestly I'm not one to take sides just because I like Apple Products, I just think its wrong to sue since Samsung clearly had this type of UI first.. Apple has no right to sue..
That phone was announced Feb Just after the iPhone. http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_f700-1849.php
"Announced 2007, February. Released December"
Although the Samsung F700 has very simple icons, Apple clearly has the same placement of icons, even looking at the bottom you find the four dock like icons..
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9559/samsungf700cellular.jpg
I'd say that Apple copied Samsung :P.. Honestly I'm not one to take sides just because I like Apple Products, I just think its wrong to sue since Samsung clearly had this type of UI first.. Apple has no right to sue..
That phone was announced Feb Just after the iPhone. http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_f700-1849.php
"Announced 2007, February. Released December"
Moyank24
Mar 8, 03:28 AM
I won't rejoin this discussion. But since neko girl may be waiting for my reply, I'll only suggest a source (http://www.tfp.org/images/books/Defending_A_Higher_Law.pdf).
Why do you feel the need to hide behind other people's words? Why would you use a book that is 2000 years old to define your morality?
You have made multiple offensive, inflammatory, and downright laughable claims. And the only way you can back them up is by using books, studies, etc..that are so completely biased they can hardly be taken seriously.
I'm sure I would be able to find articles and studies that favor my point of view as well. But why would I need to do that? I don't need written justification to make myself feel better about my beliefs, or the way I choose to live my life.
Venture out into the real world. Read the newspaper...watch TV. Gays and Lesbians are falling in love, getting married, raising children, serving in the military, serving in Congress, teaching in our schools, practicing medicine...Just like heterosexuals. No better and no worse. And the earth continues to revolve around the sun.
But I guess in the end, it's easier to justify hate and ignorance if you have a book like the Bible and organizations like the THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE DEFENSE OF TRADITION, FAMILY AND PROPERTY (?) to stand behind.
Of course if the THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE DEFENSE OF TRADITION, FAMILY AND PROPERTY says it, it must be true. There's no need to listen to those of us in this thread who actually know what we are talking about because we are living it...not because we read an article or a book about it.
Why do you feel the need to hide behind other people's words? Why would you use a book that is 2000 years old to define your morality?
You have made multiple offensive, inflammatory, and downright laughable claims. And the only way you can back them up is by using books, studies, etc..that are so completely biased they can hardly be taken seriously.
I'm sure I would be able to find articles and studies that favor my point of view as well. But why would I need to do that? I don't need written justification to make myself feel better about my beliefs, or the way I choose to live my life.
Venture out into the real world. Read the newspaper...watch TV. Gays and Lesbians are falling in love, getting married, raising children, serving in the military, serving in Congress, teaching in our schools, practicing medicine...Just like heterosexuals. No better and no worse. And the earth continues to revolve around the sun.
But I guess in the end, it's easier to justify hate and ignorance if you have a book like the Bible and organizations like the THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE DEFENSE OF TRADITION, FAMILY AND PROPERTY (?) to stand behind.
Of course if the THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE DEFENSE OF TRADITION, FAMILY AND PROPERTY says it, it must be true. There's no need to listen to those of us in this thread who actually know what we are talking about because we are living it...not because we read an article or a book about it.
Multimedia
Jul 15, 05:02 AM
Here's Link To NTI Dragon Burn for Mac OS X (http://www.ntius.com/default.asp?p=dragonburn/dburn4_main).
Dragon Burn enables Mac desktop and PowerBook notebook computer users to quickly and easily begin producing audio, data, mixed-mode CDs, and DVDs. Dragon Burn's Multi-Burning engine allows users to simultaneously write multiple CDs or DVDs. It also fully supports the newest internal and external drives, including 16x DVD-R drives.Thanks ksz. I checked it out and the multi burning capability is great. But Dragon Burn will not let you write Images which I find incredibly lame. I use Toast 7 a lot and I use it most of the time to write images not to physically burn discs. I would love to be able to write multiple Images with something. But, alas, Dragon Burn is not it. :(http://www.creativemac.com/2001/04_apr/news/toast53.htm
Still, from what I've read you need multiple instances of Toast open. I'll try Disk Utility for burning two images at once when I get a new image that I need to burn.Wow. I had no idea I could have multiple copies of Toast 7 open. Just made a dupe and it works! Thanks Eldorian. I can really push my Quad to further limits now that I know this. Mucho Gracias.
Dragon Burn enables Mac desktop and PowerBook notebook computer users to quickly and easily begin producing audio, data, mixed-mode CDs, and DVDs. Dragon Burn's Multi-Burning engine allows users to simultaneously write multiple CDs or DVDs. It also fully supports the newest internal and external drives, including 16x DVD-R drives.Thanks ksz. I checked it out and the multi burning capability is great. But Dragon Burn will not let you write Images which I find incredibly lame. I use Toast 7 a lot and I use it most of the time to write images not to physically burn discs. I would love to be able to write multiple Images with something. But, alas, Dragon Burn is not it. :(http://www.creativemac.com/2001/04_apr/news/toast53.htm
Still, from what I've read you need multiple instances of Toast open. I'll try Disk Utility for burning two images at once when I get a new image that I need to burn.Wow. I had no idea I could have multiple copies of Toast 7 open. Just made a dupe and it works! Thanks Eldorian. I can really push my Quad to further limits now that I know this. Mucho Gracias.
LordJohnWhorfin
Nov 28, 06:57 PM
If Apple pays Universal to compensate it for their losses due to iPod users being pirates, I will make sure I only procure pirate copies of Universal music and movies, since Universal has already been compensated. No need for them to get paid twice.
alent1234
Apr 20, 07:37 AM
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.
most ipods i see are Nano's for people to listen to music on the train home. why buy a Touch when it's useless unless you have wifi. it's just a lower priced SKU for apple to defend the iphone market share
most ipods i see are Nano's for people to listen to music on the train home. why buy a Touch when it's useless unless you have wifi. it's just a lower priced SKU for apple to defend the iphone market share
MacinDoc
Jul 30, 06:23 PM
Vista ships early 2007 and way preceeds the Core 3 launch. :rolleyes:
That is, Bill Gates has stated that there is an 80% chance that Vista will ship in early which, when multiplied by the 80% probability that his estimate is something smelly that comes out of the backside of a bull (and only 20% chance that it is actually true), gives a 16% chance that Vista will REALLY ship in early 2007. ;)
That is, Bill Gates has stated that there is an 80% chance that Vista will ship in early which, when multiplied by the 80% probability that his estimate is something smelly that comes out of the backside of a bull (and only 20% chance that it is actually true), gives a 16% chance that Vista will REALLY ship in early 2007. ;)
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
Porchland
Aug 7, 04:18 PM
I'm real excited for the new iChat and Spaces, along with these new "top secret features..." They better be good!
The finder is definately my bet for something to be revamped, along with probably iLife which will be revamped for leopard.
Edit : Also something more with virtualization (boot camp area) as they did not touch that really.
My bets are on some kind of Boot Camp-ish feature that will allow for native installation of Windows applications -- without Windows -- right into OS X. It would obliterate the need for applications to be written for both Windows and Mac.
<ducks and waits for flamers to whine about how impossible this is>
The finder is definately my bet for something to be revamped, along with probably iLife which will be revamped for leopard.
Edit : Also something more with virtualization (boot camp area) as they did not touch that really.
My bets are on some kind of Boot Camp-ish feature that will allow for native installation of Windows applications -- without Windows -- right into OS X. It would obliterate the need for applications to be written for both Windows and Mac.
<ducks and waits for flamers to whine about how impossible this is>
grmatt
Apr 8, 08:29 AM
I had a strange experience at Best Buy. About two days before the iPad 2 came out I went to my local Best Buy to ask about availability on release day. The employee I spoke to told me essentially that I should wait. He told me the iPad 3 was coming this fall and I should either skip the iPad 2 or purchase something like the Zoom. I pressed him how could he possible know that, I said I read all the rumor mills and such and time and time again no one actually ever knows that information. He said "they all did" (best Buy employees) it was posted on there "E-Learnings" site which is basically an internal Best Buy training/notification/product information system.
So here is an employee telling me not to purchase an iPad 2 because he thought the Zoom was better AND I should just wait because iPad 3 was coming out this fall.
WTF?
Fandroid.
So here is an employee telling me not to purchase an iPad 2 because he thought the Zoom was better AND I should just wait because iPad 3 was coming out this fall.
WTF?
Fandroid.
NJRonbo
Jun 14, 06:52 PM
The situation gets worse for Radio Shack....
http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/14/how-to-pre-order-the-iphone-4/
Update 2: We've been tipped that Apple may now be blocking third-party retailers from taking pre-orders altogether tomorrow. RadioShack already changed its story on us, and now Best Buy locations have started doing the same, telling us that they definitely won't be taking pre-orders tomorrow but may be by the end of the week. Bottom line -- hit up Apple's website in the morning.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/14/how-to-pre-order-the-iphone-4/
Update 2: We've been tipped that Apple may now be blocking third-party retailers from taking pre-orders altogether tomorrow. RadioShack already changed its story on us, and now Best Buy locations have started doing the same, telling us that they definitely won't be taking pre-orders tomorrow but may be by the end of the week. Bottom line -- hit up Apple's website in the morning.
addicted44
Apr 19, 02:50 PM
But it doesn't make sense to a lot of us. The monthly fees on an iPhone are just too much for a lot of budgets. You pay your iPod touch once and that's it. No more to pay every month after that.
Yeah, but everyone has a phone.
Not everyone buys an iPod.
Additionally, the iPod touch has to compete with all the other iPod models.
Yeah, but everyone has a phone.
Not everyone buys an iPod.
Additionally, the iPod touch has to compete with all the other iPod models.
Chaszmyr
Aug 15, 11:39 AM
That photoshop test is insane!
Consultant
Apr 19, 02:06 PM
What annoys me even more is that Apple always seems to make these claims that they made such and such first, and that Windows is copying Mac OS.. What annoys me is if you know a bit of the history you'll find that Apple copied Xerox interface, with permission of course, but it's not like they came up with it first..
Now they are making another claim that Samsung is copying..
WRONG. A lot of modern GUI elements are INVENTED by Apple:
http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/
Now they are making another claim that Samsung is copying..
WRONG. A lot of modern GUI elements are INVENTED by Apple:
http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/
matttrick
Sep 19, 12:45 AM
im glad i bought just the other day, itll be within the 14 day return period. i know some people have said they are able to get the restocking fee waived. any tips on this?
portishead
Apr 12, 12:35 PM
So wait,on the projects you're working on,is everyone using recorders to record direct to prores or do you enjoy having to waste time converting everything you get?
I almost never have to convert. All clients I work with require ProRes deliverables, and any tapeless material I get is ProRes. If I capture I use ProRes.
Then I'm guessing you do your cross fades manualy?
I just delete any transitions before. It's not that hard.
edit:and I do get your point,it works,but other competitors over the last couple years have brought improvements that I'd like to also see in FCP
I know trust me. I have a HUGE LIST of improvements, but overall FCP still works well for me for 90% of my projects.
I almost never have to convert. All clients I work with require ProRes deliverables, and any tapeless material I get is ProRes. If I capture I use ProRes.
Then I'm guessing you do your cross fades manualy?
I just delete any transitions before. It's not that hard.
edit:and I do get your point,it works,but other competitors over the last couple years have brought improvements that I'd like to also see in FCP
I know trust me. I have a HUGE LIST of improvements, but overall FCP still works well for me for 90% of my projects.
ChrisA
Sep 13, 10:14 AM
Very cool. Now to find apps (os10.5 direct blind support?) that can make use of all those cores. :cool:
One app would be iTunes. I noticed iTunes was running 14 threads last night. Any time you have a multithreaded application or are running multiple single thread aplications more cores can help.
Some server applications (the Apache web server and many DBMS systems) use a "process per client" model where a new process (another instance) of the server is created for each client connection. A bussy web server might have 100 copies of apache all running at once. 8 cores would help there.
One app would be iTunes. I noticed iTunes was running 14 threads last night. Any time you have a multithreaded application or are running multiple single thread aplications more cores can help.
Some server applications (the Apache web server and many DBMS systems) use a "process per client" model where a new process (another instance) of the server is created for each client connection. A bussy web server might have 100 copies of apache all running at once. 8 cores would help there.
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.