McScooby
Sep 6, 09:01 AM
Does this mean we can expect MB / MBP revisions with a bumped HD?
ftaok
Mar 25, 05:12 PM
naysayers are probably more concerned with the fact that you can't look at the tv screen while fumbling for the touch controls on the ipad; physical buttons enable the player to just feel for the controls, without having to look down and miss the action on tv. the only games that would work for this are racing games, where you just tilt the ipad.
what a world of difference some buttons would make <sigh>
Well, couldn't someone make a BT D-pad controller and develop dual screen games for the iPad2?
Other games that could work with this set-up are RPGs and strategy games where a second screen comes in handy.
what a world of difference some buttons would make <sigh>
Well, couldn't someone make a BT D-pad controller and develop dual screen games for the iPad2?
Other games that could work with this set-up are RPGs and strategy games where a second screen comes in handy.
ecoons
Jan 11, 10:15 PM
I don't know if anyone has said this yet, but after looking at http://www.ecoupled.com/
I can't help but think that Apple could come up with a user-friendly way of implementing this sort of technology. I personally think its only a matter of time before ALL chords are "cut". You set your iPod on your desk, it charges through inductive currents, your headphones do the same and communicate with your iPod through bluetooth (or some other wireless medium)...etc. And your computer, also, has no wires. Electricity is passed to it in the same sort of way. Now, wouldn't that be cool :)
"There's something in the air"
Maybe its just wishful thinking ;)
[Note: After being a long time READER of Mac Rumors, I have officially made my first post.]
I can't help but think that Apple could come up with a user-friendly way of implementing this sort of technology. I personally think its only a matter of time before ALL chords are "cut". You set your iPod on your desk, it charges through inductive currents, your headphones do the same and communicate with your iPod through bluetooth (or some other wireless medium)...etc. And your computer, also, has no wires. Electricity is passed to it in the same sort of way. Now, wouldn't that be cool :)
"There's something in the air"
Maybe its just wishful thinking ;)
[Note: After being a long time READER of Mac Rumors, I have officially made my first post.]
That-Is-Bull
Jan 12, 12:36 PM
I don't see the benefit of a MacBook Slim.
Can someone pursued me or tell me why it would be better then just having a MacBook?
Because it's too small for any power but it's too big for your pocket. Win-win.
Can someone pursued me or tell me why it would be better then just having a MacBook?
Because it's too small for any power but it's too big for your pocket. Win-win.
extraextra
Oct 23, 09:14 AM
Starting to feel about as likely as flying saucers...
http://www.wal9000.aonservers.com/hostedpics/mbp_wanttobelieve.jpg
Lol
I hope it comes out this week, for all those who are waiting.
http://www.wal9000.aonservers.com/hostedpics/mbp_wanttobelieve.jpg
Lol
I hope it comes out this week, for all those who are waiting.
archer75
Apr 19, 11:43 AM
The vapor chambers and relatively efficient TDP of the 6950, could be combined with a much needed re-engineered iMac cooling system(the current "slit" the back is silly)...I know I complain too much about this topic...but a 2650x1440 monitor should be powered by a MUCH more substantial GPU
I agree 100%.
I agree 100%.
xPismo
Oct 24, 01:00 AM
FW800 and/or eSATA, HD screen, C2D (nice shortening btw) and $200.00 less price point. Please Apple. Make it so.
J the Ninja
Apr 12, 09:15 PM
http://twitpic.com/4k71a8
Looks like same basic layout, after you get past the iMovie-likeness.
Also, no more render dialogue and it uses all cores to render. :)
Looks like same basic layout, after you get past the iMovie-likeness.
Also, no more render dialogue and it uses all cores to render. :)
Unspeaked
Sep 7, 09:55 AM
One thing I'd like to point out to everyone:
I realize it may not matter ro most of you (which is obvious from several comments in this thread), but one major difference between Apple's fixed price, buy-it-and-own-it model and the "NetFlix & a DVD-R Spindle" model or the "Public Library & Rip to My Hard Drive" model is that the former is 100% legal and the others are ILLEGAL.
Again, as is evident from the huge download community online, this means squat to a lot of you, but for some people, it could make a difference (the same way the iTunes Music Store did, in some regard).
I realize it may not matter ro most of you (which is obvious from several comments in this thread), but one major difference between Apple's fixed price, buy-it-and-own-it model and the "NetFlix & a DVD-R Spindle" model or the "Public Library & Rip to My Hard Drive" model is that the former is 100% legal and the others are ILLEGAL.
Again, as is evident from the huge download community online, this means squat to a lot of you, but for some people, it could make a difference (the same way the iTunes Music Store did, in some regard).
dguisinger
Aug 7, 07:58 AM
Well all those measure are bogus. OS X is far more secure than you can get from that Windows crap.
Thats why Leopard is Vista Reloaded, ver 2.0
:)
Eh, but you still have to find the stuff and set it up. In XPSP2 all security related settings are in one place, its nice. And the OS keeps annoying the hell out of you if you dont turn the firewall on.....
OOH, and even better....this one I like:
XP SP2, with firewall enabled, will tell you when a application is attempting to make a network connection, ask for authorization (allow once, allow always, or never), and adjust your firewall settings. If you are playing a game, no more swearing, the OS tells you whats wrong and asks if you trust the application. Good for the clueless people (or, good for those damn games that dont document their TCP/UDP ports)
Thats why Leopard is Vista Reloaded, ver 2.0
:)
Eh, but you still have to find the stuff and set it up. In XPSP2 all security related settings are in one place, its nice. And the OS keeps annoying the hell out of you if you dont turn the firewall on.....
OOH, and even better....this one I like:
XP SP2, with firewall enabled, will tell you when a application is attempting to make a network connection, ask for authorization (allow once, allow always, or never), and adjust your firewall settings. If you are playing a game, no more swearing, the OS tells you whats wrong and asks if you trust the application. Good for the clueless people (or, good for those damn games that dont document their TCP/UDP ports)
quaternio
Mar 25, 07:05 PM
Wireless controllers for iPad and TV dock or something please.
Actually, I don't think there's any reason someone couldn't develop a way to use a PS3 controller with an iOS device. It would probably take some work, and Apple wouldn't allow it in the App Store, but I don't see why it can't be done right now. I mean, I use a PS3 as a mouse for my TV Mac Mini.
Actually, I don't think there's any reason someone couldn't develop a way to use a PS3 controller with an iOS device. It would probably take some work, and Apple wouldn't allow it in the App Store, but I don't see why it can't be done right now. I mean, I use a PS3 as a mouse for my TV Mac Mini.
aiqw9182
Mar 24, 01:54 PM
Looks like NVIDIA is going to be out of the picture for a while. After the Mac Mini, MacBook and MacBook Air are updated to Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge it will be all Intel/AMD graphics across the board. Apple should really think about implementing hardware acceleration for AMD/ATI cards and Intel's IGP. Hopefully it will be there in Lion.
Unspeaked
Aug 16, 12:00 PM
They just pulled it off their website a few minutes ago but it was a photo of the wireless iPod!
I saved a pic of it in my cache and posted for you to see!!!
It does iTunes and video and the screen is enormous!!
Full screen iChat messaging is availble with the built in iSight!
It is also in black!
I can't wait to get my hands on one of these, looks great for watching movies.
No touch screen?
It's useless to me!
I saved a pic of it in my cache and posted for you to see!!!
It does iTunes and video and the screen is enormous!!
Full screen iChat messaging is availble with the built in iSight!
It is also in black!
I can't wait to get my hands on one of these, looks great for watching movies.
No touch screen?
It's useless to me!
LERsince1991
Mar 1, 09:06 AM
Just a few more images from the iphone as I got the braided sleeving yesterday and fitted it all today, even neater lol :P
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/6905/img0283.jpg
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/4329/img0298z.jpg
http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/7519/img0297ny.jpg
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/4659/img0280ib.jpg
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/6905/img0283.jpg
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/4329/img0298z.jpg
http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/7519/img0297ny.jpg
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/4659/img0280ib.jpg
elgruga
Sep 7, 01:41 AM
Reasoning goes like this:
Music costs a small amount to make - can be as low as $10k for an album.
Sell a bunch and make some profit.
Movies cost upwards of $50 million to make, often $100mil or more, so you got to rent them and sell them and do whatever you can to get that cash back.
And its got to go out the door at $25 if you are buying.
Thing is, if Apple want me to buy a movie for $15, I can rent it for $5 at the store.....and copy it if I want.
Yeah, I know thats against the law but a LOT of people do it, and anyway, if you d/l from Apple, where are you going to keep them all?
250 gig drive will hold about 30 movies. Thats not a lot of movies, and most people dont have 250 drives yet.....
Music costs a small amount to make - can be as low as $10k for an album.
Sell a bunch and make some profit.
Movies cost upwards of $50 million to make, often $100mil or more, so you got to rent them and sell them and do whatever you can to get that cash back.
And its got to go out the door at $25 if you are buying.
Thing is, if Apple want me to buy a movie for $15, I can rent it for $5 at the store.....and copy it if I want.
Yeah, I know thats against the law but a LOT of people do it, and anyway, if you d/l from Apple, where are you going to keep them all?
250 gig drive will hold about 30 movies. Thats not a lot of movies, and most people dont have 250 drives yet.....
AvSRoCkCO1067
Jul 19, 05:00 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.
Yeah....no....
Aren't there still more people using Windows Me/Windows 98/Windows 95 than all Mac OS users...??? People don't upgrade quickly - it would be dozens of years before Apple could even have, say, a 25% marketshare.
Yeah....no....
Aren't there still more people using Windows Me/Windows 98/Windows 95 than all Mac OS users...??? People don't upgrade quickly - it would be dozens of years before Apple could even have, say, a 25% marketshare.
ipadder
Oct 24, 01:08 PM
hello everyone..i have bought a new ipod touch and i want a case to cover it and to provide protection from scratches.please can anyone suggest me.
How much do you want to spend?
How much do you want to spend?
chutch15
Sep 14, 01:57 PM
The Belkin Grip Vue does not block the speaker.
notabadname
Apr 21, 11:54 AM
Yeah, because Google doesn't track any data on people :rolleyes:
pyramid6
Apr 26, 02:28 PM
...
The store is called the App Store. You can't copy someones store name.
...
Yes you can, that's why you trademark your name. If it is trademarked you cannot copy someones name. If it is not, you can. Doesn't make it right, but that is the way it works.
The store is called the App Store. You can't copy someones store name.
...
Yes you can, that's why you trademark your name. If it is trademarked you cannot copy someones name. If it is not, you can. Doesn't make it right, but that is the way it works.
Evangelion
Aug 29, 11:16 AM
Nonono, Merom costs the same as Yonah's June price
points which are still here even with Merom out in the wild.
intel will sell yonahs for quite some time besides merom. why sell them when merom is better? answer: because they will sell them for lower price
points which are still here even with Merom out in the wild.
intel will sell yonahs for quite some time besides merom. why sell them when merom is better? answer: because they will sell them for lower price
Agaetis Byrjun
Feb 21, 08:35 PM
Very nice.
What music genre do you dabble in? And what monitors are those? Do they sit that flush out of the box or did you hack the stand off in favour of some armature?
I'd say most of the stuff I do is indie rock, shoegazer and some electronic style stuff. No real strict genre.
I have two 24" HP monitors that are on their original stands and sit like that right out of the box. You can adjust the height but I like it at the lowest, that way I get a bit more sunlight in.
The other lone monitor is a 21" Viewsonic. That one I did remove the stock stand and now it's just sitting on a hard case that one of my microphones came in and is just leaning up against the wall. A bit ghetto but it doesn't look too bad.
What music genre do you dabble in? And what monitors are those? Do they sit that flush out of the box or did you hack the stand off in favour of some armature?
I'd say most of the stuff I do is indie rock, shoegazer and some electronic style stuff. No real strict genre.
I have two 24" HP monitors that are on their original stands and sit like that right out of the box. You can adjust the height but I like it at the lowest, that way I get a bit more sunlight in.
The other lone monitor is a 21" Viewsonic. That one I did remove the stock stand and now it's just sitting on a hard case that one of my microphones came in and is just leaning up against the wall. A bit ghetto but it doesn't look too bad.
benjs
Mar 23, 02:22 PM
You still don't get it. It is having all your music with you. The choice to play anything you feel in the mood to hear , not that you play it all from start to finish.
That's exactly it. I bought an iPod classic so that, of the 18,551 tracks I have within my iTunes library, when I am feeling the urge to listen to one of them - I absolutely know that I have it on me.
That's exactly it. I bought an iPod classic so that, of the 18,551 tracks I have within my iTunes library, when I am feeling the urge to listen to one of them - I absolutely know that I have it on me.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment