ArtOfWarfare
Apr 12, 09:42 PM
Better yet, 9 to 5 mac has a video stream.
http://www.9to5mac.com/61109/nab-2011/
This is working equally not well.
http://www.9to5mac.com/61109/nab-2011/
This is working equally not well.
bobsentell
May 2, 05:44 PM
iOS style multitasking features (benefits) are indeed in Lion.
Applications written for Lion can "suspend and resume" without having to "save and close" documents. The reason the little light below running apps on the Dock was removed is that "running" is now more of a decision between the App and OS -- not so much the user. (APP - "Am I idle right now? Can I resume from this point very quickly? If so, I'll just suspend myself till the user or an event wakes me back up. No need to burn RAM or CPU, the user won't even notice I'm not here.)
There is no reason with modern computer architecture for humans to do memory management by getting involved with which programs are actually physically in memory/active. We have 7200rpm SATA3 or SSD drives, multicore processors with Gigahertz speeds, and Gigabytes of RAM...
The way we interact with Multitasking in Windows 7 and OS X Snow Leopard is based on the hardware limitations imposed by 640K RAM, 4.7 Megahertz single core processor, and Floppy Disks. Apple took the first brave step away from that with iOS. It's good to see it moving forward in Lion.
But my iPhone is far more limited than my first Windows PC in that regard. Even with Windows 95 I could go from one app to another while letting the other on load in the background. iOS freezes everything. If I want a video to upload on Facebook, I have no choice but to keep the app open until it's done. On my PC, I can start the upload and then move on to other things while the process is completing.
I find moving to non-true multitasking as a step backward, not a step forward. As you said, out systems capabilites are able to do so much more. I can be playing a computer game, hit the Windows key, and open a media player and never see a drop in performance. Why limit your computer to one task at a time? Kind of defeats the point of multi-core processors.
Applications written for Lion can "suspend and resume" without having to "save and close" documents. The reason the little light below running apps on the Dock was removed is that "running" is now more of a decision between the App and OS -- not so much the user. (APP - "Am I idle right now? Can I resume from this point very quickly? If so, I'll just suspend myself till the user or an event wakes me back up. No need to burn RAM or CPU, the user won't even notice I'm not here.)
There is no reason with modern computer architecture for humans to do memory management by getting involved with which programs are actually physically in memory/active. We have 7200rpm SATA3 or SSD drives, multicore processors with Gigahertz speeds, and Gigabytes of RAM...
The way we interact with Multitasking in Windows 7 and OS X Snow Leopard is based on the hardware limitations imposed by 640K RAM, 4.7 Megahertz single core processor, and Floppy Disks. Apple took the first brave step away from that with iOS. It's good to see it moving forward in Lion.
But my iPhone is far more limited than my first Windows PC in that regard. Even with Windows 95 I could go from one app to another while letting the other on load in the background. iOS freezes everything. If I want a video to upload on Facebook, I have no choice but to keep the app open until it's done. On my PC, I can start the upload and then move on to other things while the process is completing.
I find moving to non-true multitasking as a step backward, not a step forward. As you said, out systems capabilites are able to do so much more. I can be playing a computer game, hit the Windows key, and open a media player and never see a drop in performance. Why limit your computer to one task at a time? Kind of defeats the point of multi-core processors.
cube
Mar 24, 03:19 PM
No, I don't like Apple to force me to buy Intel.
chutch15
Sep 13, 09:05 AM
There is certainly space.
mdriftmeyer
Mar 22, 08:00 PM
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
220GB of FLAC songs is not 50,000 songs.
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
220GB of FLAC songs is not 50,000 songs.
Unspeaked
Sep 6, 11:29 AM
Whre is FireWire 800?
At least two FireWire ports, please.
And a true 7200 rpm fast drive.
Thanks.
I believe what you're looking for is called the iMac.
At least two FireWire ports, please.
And a true 7200 rpm fast drive.
Thanks.
I believe what you're looking for is called the iMac.
newdeal
Mar 25, 06:38 PM
It makes me laugh that people are saying bad things about this when the playbook did it it was the best thing ever and the software it was displaying wasn't nearly so advanced
OllyW
Mar 22, 01:02 PM
I don't believe any was born gay, that's my opinion. I believe you make the choice in your life, just like you make the choice on what career you want and college you desire to go to. I have friends that were once married (guy/girl) and then divorced because they liked their sex better. So now they are openly gay and happy. I have back and forth e-mails with them stating they consider it a choice. One of my friends is a writer for Lesbians and spoke in front of congress on this issue 2 years ago. I was with her and she even stated that it was a choice to become a lesbian and it's now America's choice to accept it for all for choose this path.
I don't believe you, that's my opinion.
I don't believe you, that's my opinion.
PodPacker
Oct 23, 11:50 AM
Updates are expected very soon boys and ghouls! My dealer at a Mac Online Store just sent me an e-mail announcing a $100+ price drop on MacBook Pro laptops.
Tilpots
Oct 23, 08:58 AM
Orange enclosures and a scary, carved apple face for a Halloween Release!:D
PantherJeep
Mar 1, 03:28 PM
That may be true of the huge American diesel truck engines, but go examine a new VW, BMW or Mercedes diesel and you'll see that this is just not the case anymore. They sound a little different, smell a little different, but not worse than gasoline - it's just that we are so used to gas engines that everything else is assumed to be worse somehow.
This. You can barely even smell the exhaust - if at all - even from the new truck engines with DPFs. The Cummins ISB in the Dodge, in particular, is effectively odorless (though they were having durability problems with their DPFs - dunno if that's solved yet or not).
That said though, right this moment I'm very glad I don't have to buy diesel fuel. The price per gallon for #2 is hovering right around $4/gallon (http://www.sandiegogasprices.com/index.aspx?fuel=D) at all the stations near me (North San Diego County).
This. You can barely even smell the exhaust - if at all - even from the new truck engines with DPFs. The Cummins ISB in the Dodge, in particular, is effectively odorless (though they were having durability problems with their DPFs - dunno if that's solved yet or not).
That said though, right this moment I'm very glad I don't have to buy diesel fuel. The price per gallon for #2 is hovering right around $4/gallon (http://www.sandiegogasprices.com/index.aspx?fuel=D) at all the stations near me (North San Diego County).
Machead III
Sep 7, 08:07 AM
Judging by the ratings, I get the sensation that some of us here don't like disney movies.
Like I've said already, Disney own Touchstone and Miramax, both of whom have a vast catalog of films between them covering practically every genre.
Miramax also pick up the odd non-English language film too, which is important for serious film fans. I know a whole bunch of Jean-Pierre Juenet and Adurey Tautou movies were, like "Un long dimanche de fiancailles" and "A la folie... pas du tout", both of which are fricking brilliant.
Like I've said already, Disney own Touchstone and Miramax, both of whom have a vast catalog of films between them covering practically every genre.
Miramax also pick up the odd non-English language film too, which is important for serious film fans. I know a whole bunch of Jean-Pierre Juenet and Adurey Tautou movies were, like "Un long dimanche de fiancailles" and "A la folie... pas du tout", both of which are fricking brilliant.
scottlinux
Nov 27, 01:32 PM
Many find two 17" LCDs more useful than one big LCD. Esp graphic artists, film composers, etc. They can have their tools/mixer open on one monitor, and the image or sequence open on another.
Or if someone already has a big LCD, it would be a good compliment to put a 17" alongside it.
Or if someone already has a big LCD, it would be a good compliment to put a 17" alongside it.
bunkre
Sep 1, 12:23 PM
...so I can only imagine that with 3 more inches to love!
quote of the year right there
quote of the year right there
barkmonster
Apr 27, 11:59 AM
You can't be more wrong. I was writing Web Apps in the 90s using mod_perl, Apache and PostgreSQL.
Other OSes have also had Applications associated as a word to describe the software that runs on them by the media and internally, see this 1989 reference to OS/2 :
http://books.google.com/books?id=JzoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT40#v=onepage&q&f=false
I was simply suggesting that Apple used the term "App" as a familiar leaning to the way they call software "Applications" in Mac OS. Also, Apple have being refering to software that runs on their operating systems as "Applications" since 1980: -
The Apple Lisa (precursor to the original 1984 Macintosh) had an Applications folder in 1980.
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/inventingthelisauserinterface/pics/fig6
The Macintosh has obviously had an Applications folder from 1984 to present
In terms of GUI history and it's conventions, there was the Xerox Alto as far back as 1973 but from all the screen shot hunting I've done, it seems to have no Applications or Programs folder because it has a "starting point" (indicated by the Start box) and then a list of files to open, some of which end in .run which presumably are executable programs/applications: -
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/347/1857
So yeah, "The Macintosh" wasn't the first GUI that had APPlicationS but Apple appear to have a LOT of prior use of the term with the Lisa OS before it in 1980 and GUI consistency between Mac OS X and iOS being a cut down version OS X, they logically refer to Applications on iOS devices in a cut down form too.
Other OSes have also had Applications associated as a word to describe the software that runs on them by the media and internally, see this 1989 reference to OS/2 :
http://books.google.com/books?id=JzoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT40#v=onepage&q&f=false
I was simply suggesting that Apple used the term "App" as a familiar leaning to the way they call software "Applications" in Mac OS. Also, Apple have being refering to software that runs on their operating systems as "Applications" since 1980: -
The Apple Lisa (precursor to the original 1984 Macintosh) had an Applications folder in 1980.
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/inventingthelisauserinterface/pics/fig6
The Macintosh has obviously had an Applications folder from 1984 to present
In terms of GUI history and it's conventions, there was the Xerox Alto as far back as 1973 but from all the screen shot hunting I've done, it seems to have no Applications or Programs folder because it has a "starting point" (indicated by the Start box) and then a list of files to open, some of which end in .run which presumably are executable programs/applications: -
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/347/1857
So yeah, "The Macintosh" wasn't the first GUI that had APPlicationS but Apple appear to have a LOT of prior use of the term with the Lisa OS before it in 1980 and GUI consistency between Mac OS X and iOS being a cut down version OS X, they logically refer to Applications on iOS devices in a cut down form too.
LethalWolfe
Apr 12, 10:17 PM
You really are worried that Final Cut Pro will not be more complicated than iMovie??!
No, I'm worried that FCP could be dumbed down too much to properly do the job at hand.
Lethal
No, I'm worried that FCP could be dumbed down too much to properly do the job at hand.
Lethal
Umbongo
Nov 16, 11:44 AM
either way, its both a win-win situation
a) you dont need 8 cores?? see the 4 cores Mac pro goes down in retail price
b) you want 8 cores? Great !! here it is
case close.
An unlikely scenario. Don't expect any price drops on mac pros for a long time after clovertown chips are in them.
a) you dont need 8 cores?? see the 4 cores Mac pro goes down in retail price
b) you want 8 cores? Great !! here it is
case close.
An unlikely scenario. Don't expect any price drops on mac pros for a long time after clovertown chips are in them.
Doctor Q
Jul 18, 02:27 PM
Supposedly Mr. Jobs "lost" this round of negotiations...I wouldn't be surprised if he ceded that point to the studios because he knows something is around the corner. One possibility that jumps to mind is competition between studios to be the first to provide pay-to-own content.In the meantime, Movielink already offers rental and purchase options, and I read that they will also be allowing you to burn your own DVDs, although I don't know the details.
This is from their site:
This is from their site:
HecubusPro
Aug 31, 02:49 PM
Really?! This is very interesting. Are they already shipping then?
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2010
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2010
aiqw9182
Mar 24, 04:46 PM
On the server, AMD has inexpensive 12-core, 4-way CPUs since some time. Now going for 16-core with Bulldozer (well, now it will be more like 16-core integer/8-core floating point).
The absolute bargain now are the 8-core, 4-way CPUs. You can have a 32-core machine for very little money.
The the next Atom will have a DirectX 10.1 GPU, meanwhile Bobcat Fusion already has DirectX 11 hardware and OpenCL.
AMD's CPU's are trash and they're cheap for a reason.
Oh and for someone who doesn't use Windows you sure seem interested in Windows only API's. Love all of those OpenCL applications you listed by the way. ;)
The absolute bargain now are the 8-core, 4-way CPUs. You can have a 32-core machine for very little money.
The the next Atom will have a DirectX 10.1 GPU, meanwhile Bobcat Fusion already has DirectX 11 hardware and OpenCL.
AMD's CPU's are trash and they're cheap for a reason.
Oh and for someone who doesn't use Windows you sure seem interested in Windows only API's. Love all of those OpenCL applications you listed by the way. ;)
FoxMcCloud
Mar 22, 04:27 PM
220GB would tie in nicely with 24 bit songs.
zedsdead
Apr 12, 09:10 PM
Cocoa, Grand Central, Open CL!!!
peharri
Jul 18, 09:32 AM
...but why on Earth would Jobs announce this at a developer's conference?
WWDC showcases the new hardware and software, but this isn't either, it's a product of little or no interest to developers. It's the wrong audience.
A more realistic possibility is a seperate, unrelated, keynote. The iTunes Music Store was announced at a special event, and I'd imagine any "movie download service" would be announced similarly.
I don't think the idea is impossible. I can see a $5 fixed fee thing working quite well, with $1 going to Apple to cover their operating costs. They can probably get an hour or so of moderate, better-then-VHS-resolution, quality for 100 megabytes if they choose a reasonable codec. The system probably fits Apple better than a selling system, where questions like "I can burn my music to CD, how come I can't burn my movies to DVD" will be asked. The major issue I can forsee though is that most of us want to watch movies on a large screen. Most Mac users don't really have anything that would work for that. Perhaps a little, cheap, Firewire widget that does TV out should be in Apple's future.
WWDC showcases the new hardware and software, but this isn't either, it's a product of little or no interest to developers. It's the wrong audience.
A more realistic possibility is a seperate, unrelated, keynote. The iTunes Music Store was announced at a special event, and I'd imagine any "movie download service" would be announced similarly.
I don't think the idea is impossible. I can see a $5 fixed fee thing working quite well, with $1 going to Apple to cover their operating costs. They can probably get an hour or so of moderate, better-then-VHS-resolution, quality for 100 megabytes if they choose a reasonable codec. The system probably fits Apple better than a selling system, where questions like "I can burn my music to CD, how come I can't burn my movies to DVD" will be asked. The major issue I can forsee though is that most of us want to watch movies on a large screen. Most Mac users don't really have anything that would work for that. Perhaps a little, cheap, Firewire widget that does TV out should be in Apple's future.
rasmasyean
Mar 19, 05:32 PM
That's why the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq.
I don't think so. Gaddafi willingly traded Libya's oil, currently no oil at all is traded, and I don't think the rebels (unorganized as they are) will do a good job at it anytime soon. The nations now supporting the air strikes against Gaddafi would have been better off quietly sending him weapons to mute the rebels if they wanted oil.
Even if it didn't directly affect the oil trade, I wouldn't be surprised if yet another US base or two somehow gets negotiated into the aftermath. That's also "securing the oil". If we one day figure out how to do fusion, and make electric cars work or something, we wouldn't give a crap about which leader kills eachother there.
I don't think so. Gaddafi willingly traded Libya's oil, currently no oil at all is traded, and I don't think the rebels (unorganized as they are) will do a good job at it anytime soon. The nations now supporting the air strikes against Gaddafi would have been better off quietly sending him weapons to mute the rebels if they wanted oil.
Even if it didn't directly affect the oil trade, I wouldn't be surprised if yet another US base or two somehow gets negotiated into the aftermath. That's also "securing the oil". If we one day figure out how to do fusion, and make electric cars work or something, we wouldn't give a crap about which leader kills eachother there.
No comments:
Post a Comment