kenypowa
Apr 27, 08:09 AM
Funny comment from Engadget:
Q: Why is my iphone tracking me?
A: It's not. It's tracking networks and cell towers near wherever you go.
Q: What is the difference between tracking me, and tracking the towers wherever I happen to go? Isn't that the same thing?
A: No. Because it's crowd-sourced. Total crowd size = 1.
Q: Umm. Ok? Soo. Why have you been keeping logs for the past year?
A: That was a bug.
Q: Then why was it unencrypted?
A: That was a bug.
Q: Right. Then why when I opted out did it ignore my choice?
A: That was a bug.
Q: Why is my iphone tracking me?
A: It's not. It's tracking networks and cell towers near wherever you go.
Q: What is the difference between tracking me, and tracking the towers wherever I happen to go? Isn't that the same thing?
A: No. Because it's crowd-sourced. Total crowd size = 1.
Q: Umm. Ok? Soo. Why have you been keeping logs for the past year?
A: That was a bug.
Q: Then why was it unencrypted?
A: That was a bug.
Q: Right. Then why when I opted out did it ignore my choice?
A: That was a bug.
mwswami
Jul 21, 10:20 AM
If you get away from the desktop and look to the server market, however, the picture changes. A web server may only be running one copy of Apache, but it may create a thread for every simultaneous connection. If you have 8 cores, then you can handle 8 times as many connections as a 1-core system can (assuming sufficient memory and I/O bandwidth, of course.) Ditto for database, transaction, and all kinds of other servers. More cores means more simultaneous connections without performance degradation.
I agree with all you said except for the above. Most servers don't use a thread per connection model. Using non-blocking, asynchronous, or event based IO you can get a lot higher scalability with far fewer threads. But its true - you get more work done with more cores.
Multi-core systems on the server are also great for supporting virtual environments. The higher the number of cores, memory etc, the better it is for supporting larger number of virtual servers.
I agree with all you said except for the above. Most servers don't use a thread per connection model. Using non-blocking, asynchronous, or event based IO you can get a lot higher scalability with far fewer threads. But its true - you get more work done with more cores.
Multi-core systems on the server are also great for supporting virtual environments. The higher the number of cores, memory etc, the better it is for supporting larger number of virtual servers.
Bubba Satori
Mar 26, 12:23 PM
Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Yes, as more and more of iOS moves into OS X.
Yes, as more and more of iOS moves into OS X.
pkson
Apr 19, 11:37 PM
lol... thanks! Dunno how I missed that.
--
Silly thought for the evening: Apple should be glad that Samsung is copying their old 3GS instead of the new iPhone 4.
After all, only one company at a time should be paying style homage to old Leicas, right?
I remember Steve mentioning that at the iP4 keynote. ... (I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic, or just mentioning something that popped up in your mind.. whatever it is, I'll just take it at face value..) Yeah, I don't think Samsung can do something like that yet.. They haven't done much work with aluminum.. Plus, I doubt they'll even remotely copy anything by Apple in the future.
--
Silly thought for the evening: Apple should be glad that Samsung is copying their old 3GS instead of the new iPhone 4.
After all, only one company at a time should be paying style homage to old Leicas, right?
I remember Steve mentioning that at the iP4 keynote. ... (I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic, or just mentioning something that popped up in your mind.. whatever it is, I'll just take it at face value..) Yeah, I don't think Samsung can do something like that yet.. They haven't done much work with aluminum.. Plus, I doubt they'll even remotely copy anything by Apple in the future.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 08:11 PM
Probably, but it was certainly orchestrated to look anything but. Sarkozy was very obliging in shooting his mouth off, as was Cameron. It may have just been luck, but if so it was a remarkable piece of luck to have 4 submarines, a flagship-capable surface ship and all necessary support in the right place at the right time. These things don't travel very fast.
I agree, it is quite possible. However, the US didn't orchestrate the uprising itself, if anyone is responsible it's the heavy-handed Gadaffi and the Egyptians with their successful revolt.
As for the presence of the naval squadron, the other middle Eastern revolts and the Somali piracy task force meant that we already had units in the area or en-route. It may very well be a case of forward planning rather than a stage-managed "coincidence". Still, we certainly can't know which is the truth.
I agree, it is quite possible. However, the US didn't orchestrate the uprising itself, if anyone is responsible it's the heavy-handed Gadaffi and the Egyptians with their successful revolt.
As for the presence of the naval squadron, the other middle Eastern revolts and the Somali piracy task force meant that we already had units in the area or en-route. It may very well be a case of forward planning rather than a stage-managed "coincidence". Still, we certainly can't know which is the truth.
milo
Jul 27, 04:11 PM
I'm sorry. I thought that it was adequately implied that I meant the fastest chip, to date. Anyway, that's what I meant if I've been misunderstood.
I wasn't disagreeing with the "to date" part, just with the notion that a higher clock speed is the same as a faster chip.
The 2.7 G5 will continue to be the highest clocked chip in a mac to date. But chips with lower clock speeds will likely prove to be faster in benchmarks, meaning it's not the fastest chip.
I wasn't disagreeing with the "to date" part, just with the notion that a higher clock speed is the same as a faster chip.
The 2.7 G5 will continue to be the highest clocked chip in a mac to date. But chips with lower clock speeds will likely prove to be faster in benchmarks, meaning it's not the fastest chip.
swingerofbirch
Aug 26, 07:40 PM
I'm sure the GPU will also be bumped, at the very least. The MBP will probably also see some things that the MB has like a user-removable hard drive and magnetic latch. The CPU and GPU alone make it worth getting the new one, IMO.
Also, I'll say it one last time (yea right) - the imac should not and will not get a mobile processor. It only got Yonah because there was no alternative. It had a real desktop processor when one was available on the PPC side (G5), and it will have a real desktop processor now that one is available on the intel side (Conroe). Leave merom for what it was meant for - laptops.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
But, I guess they COULD have put a pentium d in them...didnt they have dual cores?
Also, I'll say it one last time (yea right) - the imac should not and will not get a mobile processor. It only got Yonah because there was no alternative. It had a real desktop processor when one was available on the PPC side (G5), and it will have a real desktop processor now that one is available on the intel side (Conroe). Leave merom for what it was meant for - laptops.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
But, I guess they COULD have put a pentium d in them...didnt they have dual cores?
polyesterlester
Aug 7, 03:55 PM
From the Xcode 3.0 (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/xcode.html) page:
"Project Snapshots
"Record the state of your project anytime, and restore it instantly. Experiment with new features without spending time or brain cells committing them to a source control system. Like saving a game in Civilization 4, Xcode 3.0 lets you go back in time without repercussions. If only reality worked this way at the Pentagon..."
I love you, Apple.
"Project Snapshots
"Record the state of your project anytime, and restore it instantly. Experiment with new features without spending time or brain cells committing them to a source control system. Like saving a game in Civilization 4, Xcode 3.0 lets you go back in time without repercussions. If only reality worked this way at the Pentagon..."
I love you, Apple.
Demoman
Sep 15, 10:52 PM
Uh, last time I checked, Windows can take advantage of multiple cores just fine. Do you think that multithreading is some Black Magic that only MacOS can do? Hell, standard Linux from kernel.org can use 512 cores as we speak!
Related to this: Maybe not 512-way SMP, but here (http://www.linux-mips.org/wiki/IP27_boot_messages) is what it looks like when Linux boots on 128-way SGI Origin supercomputer. Note, the kernel that is booting is 2.4.1, which was released in early 2001. Things have progressed A LOT since those day.
OS X works with quad core == "Ahead of technology curve"... puhleeze!
Windows works just fine with dual-core. It really does. To Wndows, dual-core is more or less similar to typical SMP, and Windows has supported SMP since Windows NT!
Any reason why it wouldn't work? And did you even read the Anandtech-article? They conducted their benchmarks in Windows XP! So it obviously DID work with four cores! And it DID show substantial improvement in performance in real-life apps! Sheesh! Dial tone that fanboysihness a bit, dude.
I think the same applies to you, Bill. You seem to be here to act as a Microsoft evangelist.
Related to this: Maybe not 512-way SMP, but here (http://www.linux-mips.org/wiki/IP27_boot_messages) is what it looks like when Linux boots on 128-way SGI Origin supercomputer. Note, the kernel that is booting is 2.4.1, which was released in early 2001. Things have progressed A LOT since those day.
OS X works with quad core == "Ahead of technology curve"... puhleeze!
Windows works just fine with dual-core. It really does. To Wndows, dual-core is more or less similar to typical SMP, and Windows has supported SMP since Windows NT!
Any reason why it wouldn't work? And did you even read the Anandtech-article? They conducted their benchmarks in Windows XP! So it obviously DID work with four cores! And it DID show substantial improvement in performance in real-life apps! Sheesh! Dial tone that fanboysihness a bit, dude.
I think the same applies to you, Bill. You seem to be here to act as a Microsoft evangelist.
radiohead14
Apr 19, 03:46 PM
honestly i don't understand Company Obsession.
Its fine to love gadgets, regardless of company, but to be blindly following a multinational corporation whose only motivation is $$$ for its shareholders, its kinda retarded.
EVERYONE. BE A GADGET FAN. DON'T OBSESS OVER A COMPANY.
AMEN! ...ahem.. I mean +1 :D
side note: it's silly that I have to state that I own a bunch of Apple computers/devices when I criticize Apple.. or else I'm in danger of being called a "troll".. I think that those who call others "trolls" are either immature, or have nothing to really add to the discussion.
Its fine to love gadgets, regardless of company, but to be blindly following a multinational corporation whose only motivation is $$$ for its shareholders, its kinda retarded.
EVERYONE. BE A GADGET FAN. DON'T OBSESS OVER A COMPANY.
AMEN! ...ahem.. I mean +1 :D
side note: it's silly that I have to state that I own a bunch of Apple computers/devices when I criticize Apple.. or else I'm in danger of being called a "troll".. I think that those who call others "trolls" are either immature, or have nothing to really add to the discussion.
bokdol
Aug 18, 09:22 AM
hey bokdol, you and i can start a business and help all the intel mac pro users dispose of their old G5 power macs
we can go into business :)
i'm in
we can start today
we can go into business :)
i'm in
we can start today
yoak
Apr 12, 01:14 PM
+1
I posted it over in the other FCS thread after learning of the link here. Thanks
I posted it over in the other FCS thread after learning of the link here. Thanks
iJohnHenry
Apr 27, 06:06 PM
I have a friend was name that way. Instead of putting JR in he puts II in.
Not kosher.
He is still Jr., no matter how much he protests.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_name_a_Jr_vs_II_vs_III
Not kosher.
He is still Jr., no matter how much he protests.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_name_a_Jr_vs_II_vs_III
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 03:30 PM
I don't get nearly as many dropped calls when switching between towers like I did when I used T-Mobile and Cingular.
You know as well as I do that has to do with the signal, not whether it is Code division or time division. If you claim differently, show me reputable references.
You know as well as I do that has to do with the signal, not whether it is Code division or time division. If you claim differently, show me reputable references.
johnj84
Mar 26, 02:24 AM
Been on Lion for the past month and I can't see myself going back to Snow Leopard.
hayesk
Mar 23, 10:08 AM
Sorry, completely forgot about that.
iOS rocks in apps, but it does suck *** in terms of notifications and true multitasking.
iOS doesn't suck in terms of true multitasking because it doesn't use "true" multitasking. iOS excels at using a form of multitasking that is appropriate for the hardware it is running on.
iOS rocks in apps, but it does suck *** in terms of notifications and true multitasking.
iOS doesn't suck in terms of true multitasking because it doesn't use "true" multitasking. iOS excels at using a form of multitasking that is appropriate for the hardware it is running on.
ergle2
Sep 19, 08:38 PM
then i will have to work just a little bit harder i'm afraid ;)
i'll start with the 1 gig ram, maybe 2, and later i will be upgrading,it can't stay expansive forever.
thx again for your reply
DailyTech (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4217) has a mention of the Core 2 Quadro processors.
Pricing mentioned was a little lower than I expected, but it's processors in the Conroe line rather than the Xeon. Having said that, the 3GHz Xeon is slightly cheaper than the 2.93GHz Conroe.
As expected, the highest rated speed mentioned is 2.67Ghz.
i'll start with the 1 gig ram, maybe 2, and later i will be upgrading,it can't stay expansive forever.
thx again for your reply
DailyTech (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4217) has a mention of the Core 2 Quadro processors.
Pricing mentioned was a little lower than I expected, but it's processors in the Conroe line rather than the Xeon. Having said that, the 3GHz Xeon is slightly cheaper than the 2.93GHz Conroe.
As expected, the highest rated speed mentioned is 2.67Ghz.
GFLPraxis
Jul 20, 12:01 PM
Back to reality: Apple wil use Xeon 51xx (5150 and 5160) in the MacPro, and Core 2 Duo (Merom) in the iMac and MBP to be announced at the WWDC. The top iMac config will get a boost to 2.33GHz. In addition, Apple will use the price-drops for the Yonah to upgrade the Core Solo mini to Core Duo.
I disagree. I think Apple will use Core 2 Duo (Conroe) in the iMac, and Merom in the MBP. The iMac could hold a G5, why not Conroe?
On top of that, you'll notice that a 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $70 less than the 1.83 GHz Yonah that's in the iMac now, $70 less than a 2 GHz Merom, and $200 less than a 2.16 GHz Merom, increasing Apple's profit margins on the iMac considerably or allowing a price drop- plus they can advertise it as a desktop processor.
In fact, even if Conroe was too hot (which I highly doubt, since the iMac had a G5), a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz still saves $70 over a 2 GHz Merom.
I disagree. I think Apple will use Core 2 Duo (Conroe) in the iMac, and Merom in the MBP. The iMac could hold a G5, why not Conroe?
On top of that, you'll notice that a 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $70 less than the 1.83 GHz Yonah that's in the iMac now, $70 less than a 2 GHz Merom, and $200 less than a 2.16 GHz Merom, increasing Apple's profit margins on the iMac considerably or allowing a price drop- plus they can advertise it as a desktop processor.
In fact, even if Conroe was too hot (which I highly doubt, since the iMac had a G5), a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz still saves $70 over a 2 GHz Merom.
ictiosapiens
Aug 17, 04:37 AM
Does anyone seriously believe games today will show any significant improvement on a Mac Pro?
1. The video cards are underclocked compared to their PC equivalents on the Mac.
2. Generally, you are limited to a framerate of 60Hz anyway.
3. Most games are old ports, and need to run thru Rosetta.
When playing a game on a PC, you have DirectX to take full advantage of the hardware, and your processor is usually tagged consuming any and all cycles it can for the game. On a Mac, multithreading, and sharing the processor among apps seems to be the flow of the computing experience.
I'd predict a single Core2 Duo Extreme would still outdo a dual processor 3.0 Ghz Xeon Mac Pro when memory timings are nearly half of the Xeon on the Core2.
Bootcamp???
1. The video cards are underclocked compared to their PC equivalents on the Mac.
2. Generally, you are limited to a framerate of 60Hz anyway.
3. Most games are old ports, and need to run thru Rosetta.
When playing a game on a PC, you have DirectX to take full advantage of the hardware, and your processor is usually tagged consuming any and all cycles it can for the game. On a Mac, multithreading, and sharing the processor among apps seems to be the flow of the computing experience.
I'd predict a single Core2 Duo Extreme would still outdo a dual processor 3.0 Ghz Xeon Mac Pro when memory timings are nearly half of the Xeon on the Core2.
Bootcamp???
mactoday
Apr 6, 11:02 AM
I might not expect IPS, doesn’t it draw more power than TN LCDs?
I don't think you'll see IPS screens in MacBook Pro's or Air in the future.
Apple is working on the mass market now and mass market don't care about quality of the screens specially on the portables.
If you need colors and better screen then Apple will sale you "****ing glossy amazing" 27" display. :)
I don't think you'll see IPS screens in MacBook Pro's or Air in the future.
Apple is working on the mass market now and mass market don't care about quality of the screens specially on the portables.
If you need colors and better screen then Apple will sale you "****ing glossy amazing" 27" display. :)
Leoff
Sep 19, 10:39 AM
While you make some valid points, you overlook others:
1. As soon as the new model comes out, the older models will drop in price. So even if you aren't getting the fastest and greatest, even if you're buying the lowest end MBP, you'll benefit from the price break.
2. MBPs are expensive computers. You're investing in something that you'll keep around for 3-4 years. I want to future-proof my computer as much as possible. Features like easily-swappable HD and fast graphics card will affect "the average user" 2+ years from now (pro'ly sooner) when everyone's downloading and streaming HD videos and OS X has all this new eye-candy that will require a fast graphics card.
3. There are other features than just a 10% increase in CPU power that we are hoping in the next MBP, including a magnetic latch, easily-access to HD and RAM, and better heat management. Certainly the average Joe will be able to benefit from these features, even if all you do is word process and surf the web.
Again, this string of responses has been talking about the MacBook, not the MacBookPro. Anyone buying a MacBook to do heavy graphics or processor-intensive stuff doesn't know what they're doing.
As soon as the new models of any Mac come out, the old models drop in price because they become refurbs.
The MacBookPro is still too new a release to have the major type of changes you and others are hoping for. All you're going to get for the next year or two is speed bumps and maybe an upgrade in HD capacity, Graphics card, or Optical Drive (Blue-Ray or HD-DVD)
Basically I see two types of users in here pleading for the newer chips: the average users who just "like the idea of fast" when it really does them no good, and the professionals who are consistantly holding out for something better. The professionals are few and far between.
1. As soon as the new model comes out, the older models will drop in price. So even if you aren't getting the fastest and greatest, even if you're buying the lowest end MBP, you'll benefit from the price break.
2. MBPs are expensive computers. You're investing in something that you'll keep around for 3-4 years. I want to future-proof my computer as much as possible. Features like easily-swappable HD and fast graphics card will affect "the average user" 2+ years from now (pro'ly sooner) when everyone's downloading and streaming HD videos and OS X has all this new eye-candy that will require a fast graphics card.
3. There are other features than just a 10% increase in CPU power that we are hoping in the next MBP, including a magnetic latch, easily-access to HD and RAM, and better heat management. Certainly the average Joe will be able to benefit from these features, even if all you do is word process and surf the web.
Again, this string of responses has been talking about the MacBook, not the MacBookPro. Anyone buying a MacBook to do heavy graphics or processor-intensive stuff doesn't know what they're doing.
As soon as the new models of any Mac come out, the old models drop in price because they become refurbs.
The MacBookPro is still too new a release to have the major type of changes you and others are hoping for. All you're going to get for the next year or two is speed bumps and maybe an upgrade in HD capacity, Graphics card, or Optical Drive (Blue-Ray or HD-DVD)
Basically I see two types of users in here pleading for the newer chips: the average users who just "like the idea of fast" when it really does them no good, and the professionals who are consistantly holding out for something better. The professionals are few and far between.
sanmiguel
Aug 12, 07:15 AM
fake obviously but it seems like a nice possibility....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5qGn7kIkMA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5qGn7kIkMA
relimw
Sep 12, 11:36 AM
I could do with multiple cores. I render HDV in the background, render projects in After Effects, compress videos in Compressor for DVDs, burn Toast images, download with BitTorrent, while surfing the web and watching 1080i H.264 material. Those extra cores would come in real handy. :)
It would be nice if 10.5 would allow a more 'blind' method to utilize these cores, versus having programmers specificly program for multi-core. Now that would be extremely helpful and allow a more simultanous workflow.
It would be nice if 10.5 would allow a more 'blind' method to utilize these cores, versus having programmers specificly program for multi-core. Now that would be extremely helpful and allow a more simultanous workflow.
KnightWRX
Apr 20, 11:35 AM
I pointed out the Grid layout many times in the other thread and was told that wasn't part of the lawsuit. If it is than Apple isn't just stretching... they are being idiotic.
According to the analysis, it is in the suit, as part of the trade dress claims.
According to the analysis, it is in the suit, as part of the trade dress claims.
No comments:
Post a Comment