MacBoobsPro
Aug 7, 05:19 AM
Thats interesting coming from a New Zealander. Very interesting
Thats what i thought :rolleyes:
Thats what i thought :rolleyes:
RebootD
Mar 24, 01:41 PM
You mean we may finally be able to buy a current gen video card at a comparable price to their windows counterparts?! Am I dreaming? I must be dreaming.. right?
Stella
Nov 27, 01:53 PM
Why do you continue to link to DigiTimes? Its not worth the time and effort, they are highly inaccurate - 100% wrong.
jxyama
Mar 19, 05:17 PM
jxyama, I think you have something there... last nite my wife (who is computer ignorant) asks whether I have a MAC or a PC. Turns out her best friend (newbie PC user for about 1 year) has convinced her that MACs aren't as good. My wife or her friend have never even used one but they 'KNOW' they are inferior to MACs. Now if either of them were to have to make a buying decision it's not hard to imagine what they'll walk out the store with.
How could any new user have a different opinion unless they happen to know a MAC user. Only 2% use MACs so they're unlikely to be exposed to one, PC users (98%) will bad mouth a MAC, and Apples advertising, while award winning does very little to enlighten people about the product.
i agree with you.
the problem with the current computer market is that it's dominated by two kind of uses, neither of which apple excels at: enterprise and gaming.
for enterprise users, innovation and usability (beyond certain degree) are secondary. what they need is computers to get the job done for as cheap as possible - because computer is purely a commodity tool. as far as corporations are concerned, there is no reason to step away from windows because it has been getting the job done and it is the cheapest options available. now, this is changing slightly recently because of the onslaught of malicious windows virus. some corporations are starting to realize that the cost of hiring windows admin and lost productivity due to these virus are starting to make windows more expensive. because they have absolutely no brand attachment, corporations that deem Macs to be more cost effective overall than windows PCs will have absolutely no problem switching. (however, they will have no problem pursuing other options if something better than Macs come out too.)
because many people work for corporations, them and their families will be most familiar with windows PCs. Macs are seen as some abnormality, and expensive. ("there's only so much a computer can do and windows does it fine, so why bother paying more for Macs?")
what they fail to see (IMO) is that Macs can do a lot more, far more easily. but it will take time for those people to be convinced that computers can really do more than what they've seen windows PCs do and it really is worth more $$$.
gaming - this is tough for apple. in this segment, user base is everything. because it's so technologically driven, R&D money is much better spent on improving the technology rather than adapting them to work on Macs...
How could any new user have a different opinion unless they happen to know a MAC user. Only 2% use MACs so they're unlikely to be exposed to one, PC users (98%) will bad mouth a MAC, and Apples advertising, while award winning does very little to enlighten people about the product.
i agree with you.
the problem with the current computer market is that it's dominated by two kind of uses, neither of which apple excels at: enterprise and gaming.
for enterprise users, innovation and usability (beyond certain degree) are secondary. what they need is computers to get the job done for as cheap as possible - because computer is purely a commodity tool. as far as corporations are concerned, there is no reason to step away from windows because it has been getting the job done and it is the cheapest options available. now, this is changing slightly recently because of the onslaught of malicious windows virus. some corporations are starting to realize that the cost of hiring windows admin and lost productivity due to these virus are starting to make windows more expensive. because they have absolutely no brand attachment, corporations that deem Macs to be more cost effective overall than windows PCs will have absolutely no problem switching. (however, they will have no problem pursuing other options if something better than Macs come out too.)
because many people work for corporations, them and their families will be most familiar with windows PCs. Macs are seen as some abnormality, and expensive. ("there's only so much a computer can do and windows does it fine, so why bother paying more for Macs?")
what they fail to see (IMO) is that Macs can do a lot more, far more easily. but it will take time for those people to be convinced that computers can really do more than what they've seen windows PCs do and it really is worth more $$$.
gaming - this is tough for apple. in this segment, user base is everything. because it's so technologically driven, R&D money is much better spent on improving the technology rather than adapting them to work on Macs...
*LTD*
May 2, 09:26 PM
I think this is the wrong way to go!
Its pulling apart mac os into a waterd down version of itself they will continue to add this stuff untill there is no difference between iOS and Mac OS!
What we'll be left with is a powerfull but waterd down mac iOS/hybrid platform with downloads through the app store like the iphone and ipad killing the powerfull features we have but running on every apple device!
I personally think apple will kill the ability to download any content through safari in the future in mac os!
So all apps will be vetted by apple and all music/films we HAVE to be made through itunes no popping on to amazon or whever to make a purchase through a browser on your imac or macbook!
I hate the direction this is going they are building a walled garden around mac os slowly and dont be supprised the ports start disapearing on the macbook soon for a 30pin dock!
Bad move apple!
"powerful but watered down."
So in other words: "powerful but much easier to use for everyone."
Sounds good to me. Go iOS.
However, if we take your sentence in full:
"What we'll be left with is a powerfull but waterd down mac iOS/hybrid platform with downloads through the app store like the iphone and ipad killing the powerfull features we have but running on every apple device!"
Then it's just nonsense! LOL
Its pulling apart mac os into a waterd down version of itself they will continue to add this stuff untill there is no difference between iOS and Mac OS!
What we'll be left with is a powerfull but waterd down mac iOS/hybrid platform with downloads through the app store like the iphone and ipad killing the powerfull features we have but running on every apple device!
I personally think apple will kill the ability to download any content through safari in the future in mac os!
So all apps will be vetted by apple and all music/films we HAVE to be made through itunes no popping on to amazon or whever to make a purchase through a browser on your imac or macbook!
I hate the direction this is going they are building a walled garden around mac os slowly and dont be supprised the ports start disapearing on the macbook soon for a 30pin dock!
Bad move apple!
"powerful but watered down."
So in other words: "powerful but much easier to use for everyone."
Sounds good to me. Go iOS.
However, if we take your sentence in full:
"What we'll be left with is a powerfull but waterd down mac iOS/hybrid platform with downloads through the app store like the iphone and ipad killing the powerfull features we have but running on every apple device!"
Then it's just nonsense! LOL
razzmatazz
Aug 6, 11:21 PM
i dunno if this has been cleared up in any other posts or whatever, but does anybody know if there will be a live quicktime video feed? i figured if steve is going to be demo-ing stuff in leopard, he'd want the hundreds of thousands of people to actually *see* it! anyway, just curious.
mr
There won't be a live VIDEO feed. Just the live TEXT feed supplied by MacRumors
mr
There won't be a live VIDEO feed. Just the live TEXT feed supplied by MacRumors
islanders
Dec 27, 11:20 PM
For $299 I will guess you would get a dvd, and a download streaming device for iTV. But if you need a mac mini then you would have two dvd players. I hope there is an upgrade for some computer functions such as websurfing and word processing.
Comcast has video on demand and there is no additional hardware. This services is supposed to expand.
I don�t see a surround sound audio amp for $299. Perhaps a dock for your iPod, or the iPod is the harddrive.
I�m really curious where this iTV might be going?
Comcast has video on demand and there is no additional hardware. This services is supposed to expand.
I don�t see a surround sound audio amp for $299. Perhaps a dock for your iPod, or the iPod is the harddrive.
I�m really curious where this iTV might be going?
silentnite
Apr 26, 04:21 PM
All I can say is why didn't I think about trademarking terms like app store back in my O.S.9 & apple Mac works 6 days, etc. The hell with all of it. I would have been having the last laugh today.:D
nagromme
Aug 6, 11:26 PM
Whatever is or is not shown about Leopard/Macs, be sure to enjoy the spectacular howling from those who assume that nothing ELSE will ever emerge about Leopard/Macs. From those who assume that if it's not mentioned on THIS particular date, Apple is doomed and it's too late :D You heard it here first: any Macs that don't appear tomorrow will NEVER appear, and Leopard will have NOTHING except what is shown tomorrow ;) It's life or death... if any rumors turn out to be only rumors, the platform is dead :)
regtamac
May 2, 07:27 PM
Hello,
As was already mentioned this feature just deletes (and only apps from the Mac App Store it seems) not uninstalls an app along with its related files. To find out more or to ask any questions just visit my site below. All the best!
Reggie Ashworth
AppDelete Developer
www.reggieashworth.com (http://www.reggieashworth.com)
As was already mentioned this feature just deletes (and only apps from the Mac App Store it seems) not uninstalls an app along with its related files. To find out more or to ask any questions just visit my site below. All the best!
Reggie Ashworth
AppDelete Developer
www.reggieashworth.com (http://www.reggieashworth.com)
syklee26
Sep 1, 12:04 PM
i don't think this rumor will come out to be true because this might take a lot of people from getting Mac Pro, unless this iMac comes out to be north of $2500, at which point nobody will buy this.
AvSRoCkCO1067
Aug 16, 09:11 AM
Compete with Zune? Seriously? Zune is even on Apple's radar?
Let me get this straight, maybe I'm mistaken. Is this the same Zune that was announced that it will "play music! videos! games! ... wait... no, we changed our minds... no games. And videos? Yeah we can't quite get that to work, it won't do that either. But it plays music! And looks like an iPod... except its a tad on the fugly side...."
Please. Apple already has something to compete with this, its called the iPod. Who needs wireless??
Actually...it's called the iPod 4G :p .
Apple's already a generation ahead of the 'Zune' - wireless, unless providing a way to purchase songs on the go, is completely and utterly...useless :) .
Let me get this straight, maybe I'm mistaken. Is this the same Zune that was announced that it will "play music! videos! games! ... wait... no, we changed our minds... no games. And videos? Yeah we can't quite get that to work, it won't do that either. But it plays music! And looks like an iPod... except its a tad on the fugly side...."
Please. Apple already has something to compete with this, its called the iPod. Who needs wireless??
Actually...it's called the iPod 4G :p .
Apple's already a generation ahead of the 'Zune' - wireless, unless providing a way to purchase songs on the go, is completely and utterly...useless :) .
MacRumors
Jun 22, 11:46 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/22/apple-to-launch-ios-enabled-imac-with-touch-interface/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/06/22/124452-iphone_imac.jpg
pregnant
Christina Aguilera pulls a
Christina Aguilera Pregnant!
Christina Aguilera: Pregnant
Christina Aguilera,
Is Christina Aguilera
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/06/22/124452-iphone_imac.jpg
codymac
Apr 20, 04:23 PM
What argument? My main point is that I hate driving, and a manual transmission doesn't help me enjoy it any more than an automatic.
That not all the manuals you've driven have been, bluntly, crap cars to begin with.
:)
That not all the manuals you've driven have been, bluntly, crap cars to begin with.
:)
macquariumguy
Mar 19, 04:36 AM
They do not have the right to kill each other.
And we have a right to try to stop them killing each other?
No.
And we have a right to try to stop them killing each other?
No.
arn
Jan 11, 08:01 PM
Maybe it would be called the AirMac. That would be an interesting name instead of the MacBook Air.
AirMac is actually the name of an Apple product in Japan. I believe its just an Airport
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirMac
arn
AirMac is actually the name of an Apple product in Japan. I believe its just an Airport
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirMac
arn
twoodcc
Apr 26, 10:37 AM
congrats to whiterabbit for 14 million points!
barkmonster
Apr 27, 06:26 AM
Yes Amazon jump on the "it's generic" bandwagon. :rolleyes:
Please lets just keep this thread about the response and not "But how is it generic. . ." "Apple didn't create App. . ." "Well Amazon is right it's generic. . ."
I don't think it's generic that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. I'm moving on.
In general, "Applications" are what Apple run on their Mac OS platform "Apps" are what they run on their iOS platform, a cut down version of Mac OS X with a cut down but related and familiar name.
Other operating systems (mobile based included) refer to software as "Programs". This has gone back as far as the days of DOS and Atari/Amiga.
Apple have so much prior use of both the term Application to refer to software and App as the shortened term for iOS that Amazon are just picking a fight because Apple offer their own alternative to the Kindle and they don't like the competition.
Please lets just keep this thread about the response and not "But how is it generic. . ." "Apple didn't create App. . ." "Well Amazon is right it's generic. . ."
I don't think it's generic that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. I'm moving on.
In general, "Applications" are what Apple run on their Mac OS platform "Apps" are what they run on their iOS platform, a cut down version of Mac OS X with a cut down but related and familiar name.
Other operating systems (mobile based included) refer to software as "Programs". This has gone back as far as the days of DOS and Atari/Amiga.
Apple have so much prior use of both the term Application to refer to software and App as the shortened term for iOS that Amazon are just picking a fight because Apple offer their own alternative to the Kindle and they don't like the competition.
SciFrog
Dec 14, 06:34 PM
Do far grand central/open cl has done nothing for mac users...
HecubusPro
Aug 29, 12:47 PM
A "FEW" weeks!!!!!!!
That too for a Core Duo and not even a Core 2 Duo!
Thats disappointing!!!
And what about the MBP?
It seems that if this rumor is correct, then why now? Why not 2 months ago? Have mini sales been all that great to warrant holding off on a simple update? Or could they possibly have been waiting for other products to move to merom so the mini doesn't infringe? I just don't understand why this has taken so long.
I would assume they're going to update everything at once to make a grander impression with all of the new upgrades. Sure, they could probably easily update the mini now and make it available for purchase, but why not wait until the C2D hits the other machines at the same time? That way Apple can say their entire computer product line has been updated. I think it makes more of an impression to casual computer and mac users.
That too for a Core Duo and not even a Core 2 Duo!
Thats disappointing!!!
And what about the MBP?
It seems that if this rumor is correct, then why now? Why not 2 months ago? Have mini sales been all that great to warrant holding off on a simple update? Or could they possibly have been waiting for other products to move to merom so the mini doesn't infringe? I just don't understand why this has taken so long.
I would assume they're going to update everything at once to make a grander impression with all of the new upgrades. Sure, they could probably easily update the mini now and make it available for purchase, but why not wait until the C2D hits the other machines at the same time? That way Apple can say their entire computer product line has been updated. I think it makes more of an impression to casual computer and mac users.
Meltdownblitz
Feb 8, 04:07 AM
2008 Infiniti G37S
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y85/xedgewaterx/G37%20iForged%20Wheels%20Posting/DSC02896.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y85/xedgewaterx/G37%20iForged%20Wheels%20Posting/DSC02938.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y85/xedgewaterx/G37%20iForged%20Wheels%20Posting/DSC02896.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y85/xedgewaterx/G37%20iForged%20Wheels%20Posting/DSC02938.jpg
tny
Aug 7, 08:11 AM
Let me steer this off topic real quick. I have read before that Apple has two OS teams so "in theory" Leopard would, in fact, be Panther 2.0 and 10.7 would be Tiger 2.0. Again, in theory� Can someone clear that up?
Nope. Here's how it works, usually (not saying this is what Apple does, but nearly everyone else does this, so ...). You've got one master codebase, called the "trunk." Everyone works with that. When it's time to start working toward a release candidate, you copy off the code base and create what's called a "branch."
Changes to the trunk are rarely back-ported to the branch (it usually depends upon whether they are bug fixes or new features; bug fixes, often are back-ported if they aren't risky; new features almost never); any changes to the branch which are relevent to the trunk *are* ported to the trunk (since most of them are bug fixes, and the rest are probably new features whose loss might be noticed in the next release).
The branch keeps being used by one team that is working on, let's say, Tiger, right up through the release and during maintenance (10.4.1, 10.4.2, 10.4.3, etc. are all from the branch, not from the trunk), while another team keeps working on the trunk until the time they branch (10.5 Alpha) the next release (let's say Leopard). When the newer branch hits release, one of two things happen: either the team that did the development on the new branch continues doing maintenance (10.5.1, 10.5.2, 10.5.3), or the group that was doing maintenance on the earlier release does maintenance on the new branch and the folks who designed the new branch go back to work on the trunk until it's time to branch again (10.6, let's call it Lion). Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages.
I'm guess this it what is meant by "Apple has two teams working on OS X." Two teams, but only one code base trunk. And thus 10.4 is derived from 10.3, not 10.2.
Nope. Here's how it works, usually (not saying this is what Apple does, but nearly everyone else does this, so ...). You've got one master codebase, called the "trunk." Everyone works with that. When it's time to start working toward a release candidate, you copy off the code base and create what's called a "branch."
Changes to the trunk are rarely back-ported to the branch (it usually depends upon whether they are bug fixes or new features; bug fixes, often are back-ported if they aren't risky; new features almost never); any changes to the branch which are relevent to the trunk *are* ported to the trunk (since most of them are bug fixes, and the rest are probably new features whose loss might be noticed in the next release).
The branch keeps being used by one team that is working on, let's say, Tiger, right up through the release and during maintenance (10.4.1, 10.4.2, 10.4.3, etc. are all from the branch, not from the trunk), while another team keeps working on the trunk until the time they branch (10.5 Alpha) the next release (let's say Leopard). When the newer branch hits release, one of two things happen: either the team that did the development on the new branch continues doing maintenance (10.5.1, 10.5.2, 10.5.3), or the group that was doing maintenance on the earlier release does maintenance on the new branch and the folks who designed the new branch go back to work on the trunk until it's time to branch again (10.6, let's call it Lion). Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages.
I'm guess this it what is meant by "Apple has two teams working on OS X." Two teams, but only one code base trunk. And thus 10.4 is derived from 10.3, not 10.2.
gr8whtd0pe
Jan 21, 09:08 PM
traded our CR-V in on Sunday, bought a 2011 Honda Odyssey EX-L
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5250/5376350835_210e8839b7_z.jpg
You are officially a parent now. Your cool factor is gone. LOL jk. TURBO IT!
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5250/5376350835_210e8839b7_z.jpg
You are officially a parent now. Your cool factor is gone. LOL jk. TURBO IT!
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.
