MCIowaRulz
Apr 19, 01:14 PM
FINALLY! I've been holding off for over a year upgrading my 2007 iMac because of the ancient ports. Give me my Thunderbolt!
I HAD YOU ALL BEAT:D
I'm GOING to upgrade from a slow single processor 867Mhz G4 from 2001 running Tiger with a 120GB+60GB HD and the ancient ATI 9000 Pro.:)
1 21.5 (or 24 please)
3.x Ghz Quad SB i7
8 GB (or 16GB)
2 TB HD
Ati 6000x series
etc etc:):)
I HAD YOU ALL BEAT:D
I'm GOING to upgrade from a slow single processor 867Mhz G4 from 2001 running Tiger with a 120GB+60GB HD and the ancient ATI 9000 Pro.:)
1 21.5 (or 24 please)
3.x Ghz Quad SB i7
8 GB (or 16GB)
2 TB HD
Ati 6000x series
etc etc:):)
danielwsmithee
Nov 27, 02:49 PM
I just hope they adjust their prices while they are at it. I love the Apple monitors but they are overpriced. Go to CompUSA and you can find at least 4-5 20" wide-screen monitors from $250-$399. At $699 they are way out or touch with the rest of the market. I could see paying a $100 premium at $499 but not $300.
A 17" monitor would be nice to pair with a mini or even with 17" iMac to use as a dual monitor workstation.
A 17" monitor would be nice to pair with a mini or even with 17" iMac to use as a dual monitor workstation.
jord1985
Nov 24, 12:05 AM
For the first visit i had to pay 154.00 when i broke my toe 4 weeks ago. This time I had insurance so I don't know how much it will be. i've been going to this guy for 13 years im sure they have me on some discount program hahah.
Vogue Harper
Jan 30, 04:46 AM
I like the idea of a pop-up navigation system!
Less chance of theft or break-in
selena gomez never say never
-2010-front.jpg "selena gomez year without rain")
selena gomez year without rain
Justin bieber amp; selena
selena gomez hoodie
selena gomez 2011
demi lovato selena gomez
selena gomez taylor lautner
selena gomez 2011 hairstyles.
justin bieber gay oprah.
selena gomez and demi lovato
justin bieber and selena gomez
selena gomez red carpet 2011.
selena gomez 2011 hairstyles.
selena gomez vestidos
download selena gomez images.
Less chance of theft or break-in
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.
cyclotron451
Nov 16, 07:37 AM
Notwithstandign such long-standing facts, there are still some MS fanboys here who think Windows is better for multicore usage (not to mention multitasking, which has been ALWAYS better in OS X)... :rolleyes:
Zune is dead, Windows is dead...face it.
Well, with the Intel Core roadmap for 2016 possibly getting up to close to 300 heterogeneous cores per motherboard/PC, certainly Windows is out of the race but OS XX 20.x will have to have evolved to probably DAML/OWL Semantic Web Ontology based, with System Strategy and System Policy Reasoners, i.e. a Cognitive OS with a flexible Operating Envelope. I think that would definitely make Safari snappier!
Zune is dead, Windows is dead...face it.
Well, with the Intel Core roadmap for 2016 possibly getting up to close to 300 heterogeneous cores per motherboard/PC, certainly Windows is out of the race but OS XX 20.x will have to have evolved to probably DAML/OWL Semantic Web Ontology based, with System Strategy and System Policy Reasoners, i.e. a Cognitive OS with a flexible Operating Envelope. I think that would definitely make Safari snappier!
Small White Car
Apr 12, 10:09 PM
Let's not forget that this is $299 for ALL YOUR MACS. (Up the the limit...4 or 5, I think?)
I had to buy 2 versions of the suite to edit on 2 Macs at once. Today, if that's all I need then my initial purchase price just went from $1,998 to $299. Anyone who says this is expensive is insane.
Yeah, the other apps will cost more but the point is that not everyone needs all of those. I sure wouldn't have bought all of them.
I had to buy 2 versions of the suite to edit on 2 Macs at once. Today, if that's all I need then my initial purchase price just went from $1,998 to $299. Anyone who says this is expensive is insane.
Yeah, the other apps will cost more but the point is that not everyone needs all of those. I sure wouldn't have bought all of them.
JGowan
Jan 13, 01:03 AM
I think it's going to be a tablet that slaps the crap out of the Kindle. It'll be a full on computer tablet that does eBooks, too and is totally wireless like Kindle and can surf the internet like Kindle (free, like Kindle) but, again gives Kindle a sound beating in every single way known to man.
Blasphemic
Jan 7, 05:26 AM
Yes, it's a Vauxhall Corsa. Brilliant car to start in, never broken down either. Except I did brake the hand-break once :D Pulled it to hard I think, had to park the car in gear over night.
yea starts everytime =)
The electronics on the other hand is acting abit up so when i brake or use the indicators the fog lights come on in the dashboard, but its those little things that make it so special :P
yea starts everytime =)
The electronics on the other hand is acting abit up so when i brake or use the indicators the fog lights come on in the dashboard, but its those little things that make it so special :P
BJB Productions
Apr 12, 09:51 PM
I wonder if they'll update the whole studio suite
(yes, including DVD Studio Pro I hope)
Here's hoping too. :)
(yes, including DVD Studio Pro I hope)
Here's hoping too. :)
bagelche
Apr 12, 10:28 PM
Wow, looks like the rumours WERE true after all! Apple killed the Pro of Final Cut Pro. That guy who turned the much admired iMovie into garbage has done it again. All they had to do was rewrite the engine with 64 bit support, had proper file handling, rendering titling tools amongst other necessary pro features and keep the same F*&$#@*&& interface as pro users of ANY pro software don't want to re-learn an interface for no reason! It takes YEARS before you really know a software under the hood.
We'll now see FCPx turn into a hit with amateurs and will be completely abandoned by pro users who will all return to avid.
Yawn...'cause if it ain't kludgy, it ain't pro.
We'll now see FCPx turn into a hit with amateurs and will be completely abandoned by pro users who will all return to avid.
Yawn...'cause if it ain't kludgy, it ain't pro.
LostPacket
Nov 29, 03:42 PM
They previewed the remote control when they previewed the iTV. I assume that they'll stick with that elegant and simple control. 5 buttons instead of 100+ buttons for the M$ Media Center nightmare.
I agree about the 100+ buttons, but I think the Front Row remote is just a little too simple for the power user. Searching and slow-mo within a video clip is a little too clumsy for me. Adding scroll-type functionality that the click-wheel offers would really stream line the interface. For example, while paused you could move forward and back frame-by-frame at any speed using a click-wheel. It would also help for scrolling through long song/movie/trailer lists.
The only reason why I suggested a full-size remote is because a click-wheel won't fit on the current one. Unless they can add touch-sensitivity to the four circular buttons of the Front Row remote.
I agree about the 100+ buttons, but I think the Front Row remote is just a little too simple for the power user. Searching and slow-mo within a video clip is a little too clumsy for me. Adding scroll-type functionality that the click-wheel offers would really stream line the interface. For example, while paused you could move forward and back frame-by-frame at any speed using a click-wheel. It would also help for scrolling through long song/movie/trailer lists.
The only reason why I suggested a full-size remote is because a click-wheel won't fit on the current one. Unless they can add touch-sensitivity to the four circular buttons of the Front Row remote.
Aeolius
Apr 26, 12:49 PM
How long until Apple releases a product called "Amazon", then? Named after the river, of course.
SteveRichardson
Jul 19, 11:05 PM
Q: Will there be any surprises at WWDC?
A: [Laughter, then Openheimer:] Well, you will have to be redundant and be redundant.
A: [Laughter, then Openheimer:] Well, you will have to be redundant and be redundant.
oracle_ab
Apr 27, 10:24 AM
We are saying the same thing - the general population, it doesn't matter if they refer to all markets as app stores, much like Windex, Xerox and Google have become generic terms.
Bingo! :)
Bingo! :)
surroundfan
Sep 6, 07:34 AM
New Mac Minis have landed. Core Duo 1.66 and 1.83. Otherwise the same...
160GB HDD option though. Just the thing for a media centre...
160GB HDD option though. Just the thing for a media centre...
tuna
Jun 22, 09:19 PM
The idea that there would be two layers and that one would be something very similar to iOS seems very "unApple". Obviously there would have to be a lot of differences between iMac iOS and portable iOS for it to make sense on its platform, and obviously there would have to be a lot of great integration with OS X to make it feel like a complete system and not hacked together bs.
That said, I see a lot of potential in this idea and I think that it is very "Apple" of them to be the first to seriously integrate touch technology in a desktop, giving them another proprietary advantage that they can sell expensive non-commodity products around.
It seems to me that as long as the screen can be flattened against the table (so you don't have to stretch out your arms) that there are great possibilities. Most people are already using laptop trackpads as their primary means of controlling the cursor. Extending the touch to the display makes a lot of sense. Give me a full power desktop environment that I can manipulate with my fingers almost Minority Report style, and then let me tilt up the screen and use a m+kb.
That said, I see a lot of potential in this idea and I think that it is very "Apple" of them to be the first to seriously integrate touch technology in a desktop, giving them another proprietary advantage that they can sell expensive non-commodity products around.
It seems to me that as long as the screen can be flattened against the table (so you don't have to stretch out your arms) that there are great possibilities. Most people are already using laptop trackpads as their primary means of controlling the cursor. Extending the touch to the display makes a lot of sense. Give me a full power desktop environment that I can manipulate with my fingers almost Minority Report style, and then let me tilt up the screen and use a m+kb.
Jaro65
Apr 3, 11:35 AM
Really enjoyed the ad. The technology becomes transparent as it becomes more advanced.
NebulaClash
Sep 14, 12:02 PM
I think you are a minority of one on this interpretation. Apple is saying you now won't get the case unless you are exhibiting the problem. Toyota's recall applies to ALL cars in the affected series, and they will repair/replace the questionable part whether you are exhibiting problems or not. Moreover, Toyota's sends a recall notice to all the impacted owners; with the new Apple policy, you have to read the news or contact Apple to learn of the program.
Toyota fixes all vehicles because they all have the potential to have dangerous problems.
Most iPhone owners have no problem whatsoever, and there's no danger at all to anyone.
So Toyota HAS to fix them all. It would be pointless for Apple to fix all iPhones in the field when most of them never have an issue needing a fix. But if you do have a problem, let them know and they will fix it for you for free. That's hardly a burden for such a non-dangerous situation.
We live in this ridiculous era of expectations. Apple comes out with a reasonable solution to a problem that affects a tiny percentage of users, and they get slammed for it. Hypocrisy.
Toyota fixes all vehicles because they all have the potential to have dangerous problems.
Most iPhone owners have no problem whatsoever, and there's no danger at all to anyone.
So Toyota HAS to fix them all. It would be pointless for Apple to fix all iPhones in the field when most of them never have an issue needing a fix. But if you do have a problem, let them know and they will fix it for you for free. That's hardly a burden for such a non-dangerous situation.
We live in this ridiculous era of expectations. Apple comes out with a reasonable solution to a problem that affects a tiny percentage of users, and they get slammed for it. Hypocrisy.
Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 19, 11:27 AM
the 256gb drive is pushing it for my needs. A 320gb flash drive or better yet, a 500gb flash drive in one of these babies would have me drooling. If they can get the prices down is the big question. Might need another couple years for that to happen.
256 should be perfect. If you need more space I'd say invest in a NAT or just external drive.
I do a ton of iMovie editing of trips n such and with itunes + movies + TV show's i'm only pushing 150gb right now on my MBP.
256 should be perfect. If you need more space I'd say invest in a NAT or just external drive.
I do a ton of iMovie editing of trips n such and with itunes + movies + TV show's i'm only pushing 150gb right now on my MBP.
Angrisano
Sep 6, 08:05 PM
I can not believe how long it has taken me to finally bother to register here...And it has taken the release of an iMac to do it.
Ironically I've been a longtime reader myself and just registered because of this article, though for exactly the opposite reason as you. :D
And yes I realize my complaints about a mid-range tower probably seem pointless to most. But the iMac just doesn't seem to meet my needs. I'm happy with my current dual monitors (which match in size and resolution) and I'd prefer more than a 128mb graphics card.
Moreover, I've been a Mac user since 1993 and never owned a single LCD-based Mac which didn't have a dead pixel. That's about seven Macs, including my current MacBook. Bad luck, I realize but I'm just not buying an all-in-one desktop from Apple. :p
Ironically I've been a longtime reader myself and just registered because of this article, though for exactly the opposite reason as you. :D
And yes I realize my complaints about a mid-range tower probably seem pointless to most. But the iMac just doesn't seem to meet my needs. I'm happy with my current dual monitors (which match in size and resolution) and I'd prefer more than a 128mb graphics card.
Moreover, I've been a Mac user since 1993 and never owned a single LCD-based Mac which didn't have a dead pixel. That's about seven Macs, including my current MacBook. Bad luck, I realize but I'm just not buying an all-in-one desktop from Apple. :p
Chef Medeski
Jul 14, 10:45 AM
If it's cheaper, looks better, sounds better, and has more available titles, then why shouldn't HD DVD win? If BD used a more efficient codec, or at least had 50gb dual layer discs now (so MPEG2 could have a high bit rate at least), and the all the backing studios pumped out more titles, I'd buy it. But that isn't what it's shaping up to be right now. If they can get their act together, this could be a fight... but they are behind.
-Terry
Because current performance isn't prove of future trends, even if it is a indicator. If BD has a plan to release 50-200GB discs, while HD DVD can only make 70, then there is an advantage. If BD runs a better codec, I'm not sure but I think MPEG2/4 is a lot more flexible than VC-1 (knowning how windows is), unless its just H.2164? (forgot the number. Yet, personally I used to be a Blu-Ray fan, but now favor HD-DVD. The reason?
Well, firstly, Blu-Ray is obviously going to have a lot more DRM control, which I HATE. I HATE THAT CRAP. I mean the whole rootkit CD thing, pissed of my friends, I mean I didn't care too much cause I could jsut burn it regularily on my mac. :D! But, if a Blu-Ray player comes to mac, I'm sure DRM will come too. And man... that would suck. I really don't want my mac slowed down, so some Sony exec knows what I'm watching.
And personally, I don't see any use for discs over 50GB. I mean I probably could fit my whole music collection on one 70GB HD-DVD to back up. Hell, I could probably fit my music and photo collection if I got rid of some music I have been meaning to get around too. But even if I had to use two discs... big whoop... plus one disc of 200GB.... I don't even have 200GB of HD space ebtween 4 computers. How the hell can I use it?
Plus, with current trends, it looks like HD-DVD will have a bigger foothole by the time Sony releases the PS3... itll be late b/c of shrotage in chip and blue ray drives... and then itll be really expensive. I think Xbox might have one this one... hopefully they dont botch it with the HD-DVD thing. And if they don't then that means for $400 you can get a HD-DVD player.... thats a steal when you consider everything it does also. I just dont see Sony winning this one, unless they drop DRM and massively subsidize all products (fat chance).
-Terry
Because current performance isn't prove of future trends, even if it is a indicator. If BD has a plan to release 50-200GB discs, while HD DVD can only make 70, then there is an advantage. If BD runs a better codec, I'm not sure but I think MPEG2/4 is a lot more flexible than VC-1 (knowning how windows is), unless its just H.2164? (forgot the number. Yet, personally I used to be a Blu-Ray fan, but now favor HD-DVD. The reason?
Well, firstly, Blu-Ray is obviously going to have a lot more DRM control, which I HATE. I HATE THAT CRAP. I mean the whole rootkit CD thing, pissed of my friends, I mean I didn't care too much cause I could jsut burn it regularily on my mac. :D! But, if a Blu-Ray player comes to mac, I'm sure DRM will come too. And man... that would suck. I really don't want my mac slowed down, so some Sony exec knows what I'm watching.
And personally, I don't see any use for discs over 50GB. I mean I probably could fit my whole music collection on one 70GB HD-DVD to back up. Hell, I could probably fit my music and photo collection if I got rid of some music I have been meaning to get around too. But even if I had to use two discs... big whoop... plus one disc of 200GB.... I don't even have 200GB of HD space ebtween 4 computers. How the hell can I use it?
Plus, with current trends, it looks like HD-DVD will have a bigger foothole by the time Sony releases the PS3... itll be late b/c of shrotage in chip and blue ray drives... and then itll be really expensive. I think Xbox might have one this one... hopefully they dont botch it with the HD-DVD thing. And if they don't then that means for $400 you can get a HD-DVD player.... thats a steal when you consider everything it does also. I just dont see Sony winning this one, unless they drop DRM and massively subsidize all products (fat chance).
Thataboy
Jul 18, 06:54 AM
This would only be viable via streaming, and that won't happen because you can't stream to an iPod.
Therefore, we can expect a big download. I imagine the movies will be the same quality as can be found currently in the store. Remember, the online store is to drive IPOD sales. Apple does not have a Music Store because it wants you to have music so badly. The point of a Movie Store would be to drive 6G iPod sales. Therefore, it makes sense to optimize the viewing experience for iPods.
The only way this would be viable, in my opinion, is if a rental were $1.99-$2.99 MAX. Other than that, I can bloody well use Netflix and Instant Handbrake (deleting the files once I return the movie). I am not so impatient that I can't wait 1 day to get a movie from my queue. For $1.99, I could be persuaded.
However, let's be real here. Bandwidth + movie companies greed = huge prices. I can totally see them trying to do this at $9.99, which is warped and insane (and therefore right in line with content producers' mindsets). Even $4.99 is nuttery.
Now... when Apple finds a way to stream movies to an Apple high-speed MVNO-equipped iPod -- now THAT would be hot. But that won't be around for years, if ever at all.
Finally, no way in Hades is this to be announced at WWDC. Maybe a week before or after, but NOT at the same time. I actually don't envision this announcement being made at all, as it would surely coincide with a new iPod (and aren't those all supposed to be delayed?).
Therefore, we can expect a big download. I imagine the movies will be the same quality as can be found currently in the store. Remember, the online store is to drive IPOD sales. Apple does not have a Music Store because it wants you to have music so badly. The point of a Movie Store would be to drive 6G iPod sales. Therefore, it makes sense to optimize the viewing experience for iPods.
The only way this would be viable, in my opinion, is if a rental were $1.99-$2.99 MAX. Other than that, I can bloody well use Netflix and Instant Handbrake (deleting the files once I return the movie). I am not so impatient that I can't wait 1 day to get a movie from my queue. For $1.99, I could be persuaded.
However, let's be real here. Bandwidth + movie companies greed = huge prices. I can totally see them trying to do this at $9.99, which is warped and insane (and therefore right in line with content producers' mindsets). Even $4.99 is nuttery.
Now... when Apple finds a way to stream movies to an Apple high-speed MVNO-equipped iPod -- now THAT would be hot. But that won't be around for years, if ever at all.
Finally, no way in Hades is this to be announced at WWDC. Maybe a week before or after, but NOT at the same time. I actually don't envision this announcement being made at all, as it would surely coincide with a new iPod (and aren't those all supposed to be delayed?).
theBB
Jul 19, 08:52 PM
Lets see Japan lost their GOD, their king after WW2, replaced him with MacArthur who rebuilt their industry
Actually, after WW2 Japan kept the emperor, so they had "one god talking to another [MacArthur]" for a while.
Actually, after WW2 Japan kept the emperor, so they had "one god talking to another [MacArthur]" for a while.
No comments:
Post a Comment