rdowns
Apr 28, 05:06 PM
Surely the comb-over is enough?
One would think.
http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/35182-donald_trump_comb_over.jpg
One would think.
http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/35182-donald_trump_comb_over.jpg
lars steenhoff
Apr 6, 05:01 PM
For the time being, the new ati macbook pro's won't work as fast with premiere pro, as they could have when premiere would use openCL, instead of Cuda.
Probably in the next version I guess, as openCL was not quite there yet when premiere CS5 was developed
Probably in the next version I guess, as openCL was not quite there yet when premiere CS5 was developed
daneoni
Aug 27, 03:38 PM
One reason Apple switched to Intel was because they couldn't get a G5 in a notebook, they kept saying they would do this for ages so a joke that powerbook G5's coming out Tuesday emerged. This *hilarious* joke has come back for an encore now we are all Intel chips which are quicker than the G5, especially as no-one knows exactly which Tuesday (28th August / 5th September / 12th September) the Merom MB/MBP will arrive.
It isn't the G5 part that's funny about it. The whole point of the joke is to make fun of the Rumor Article --> Wild Speculation --> Guessing the Specific Release Date cycle.
Finally people who grasp it
It isn't the G5 part that's funny about it. The whole point of the joke is to make fun of the Rumor Article --> Wild Speculation --> Guessing the Specific Release Date cycle.
Finally people who grasp it
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 02:48 PM
There's no denying what is happening in Libya. A dictator is slaughtering his own people.
Not only that, but the Libyan opposition support the NFZ and associated airstrikes, while also making it clear they do not want or need ground troops. We didn't have anything like that in Iraq. As long as we respect the opposition's conditions they will remain friendly to the UN-mandated forces.
As long as there is a de facto oppositon movement (controlling large portions of the country) that desires UN help, as long as no foreign ground troops are involved, and as long as the UN sanctions the affiar, this can never be another Iraq or Afghanistan.
Not only that, but the Libyan opposition support the NFZ and associated airstrikes, while also making it clear they do not want or need ground troops. We didn't have anything like that in Iraq. As long as we respect the opposition's conditions they will remain friendly to the UN-mandated forces.
As long as there is a de facto oppositon movement (controlling large portions of the country) that desires UN help, as long as no foreign ground troops are involved, and as long as the UN sanctions the affiar, this can never be another Iraq or Afghanistan.
Gelfin
Mar 3, 02:59 PM
Bill, it's OK to react emotionally. We're people, not robots. :)
Speak for yourself, squishy meat-beast.
Speak for yourself, squishy meat-beast.
ChrisA
Aug 16, 10:53 PM
My main interest is in FCP the FCP results.
On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?
I think movie editing depends a lot on the speed of the disk subsystem. After all Mini DV is 12GB per hour. That's a of data. When yo "scrub" a shot all that data has to move off the disk and onto the video card. Even with 16MB of RAM not much of the video data can be help in RAM. So the G5 and Intel machine have disks that are about the same speed. Speed of a disk is measured by how fast the bit fly under the read/write head not the interface speed. So I am not surprized the Intel Mac Pro is not hugly faster for video.
On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?
I think movie editing depends a lot on the speed of the disk subsystem. After all Mini DV is 12GB per hour. That's a of data. When yo "scrub" a shot all that data has to move off the disk and onto the video card. Even with 16MB of RAM not much of the video data can be help in RAM. So the G5 and Intel machine have disks that are about the same speed. Speed of a disk is measured by how fast the bit fly under the read/write head not the interface speed. So I am not surprized the Intel Mac Pro is not hugly faster for video.
Mr. Mister
Jul 14, 04:31 PM
If There's No BTO Option For A Single-processor 2.66 Configuration, That Will Be Frustrating™.
cult hero
Mar 26, 03:59 PM
Details found here :
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-removes-Samba-from-Mac-OS-X-10-7-Server-1215179.html
Gist of it :
- less features than Samba
- no more Active Directory Services
- Just file sharing now.
Samba developers have also noted that the true motive behind this move might not be the GPLv3 per say, but a more global move away from the GPL. Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Anyway, Samba v4 could have given them all the "features" they implemented and much more. Their own in-house version won't necessarily be better just because it's written by Apple. The Samba team does a great job with what Microsoft puts out as documentation (if you can even call it that).
Note that from the article, this change only impacts OS X Server. The client was already an in-house solution.
Ick. None of that is good news. Although their current implementation of Samba is old anyway. Things aren't going to get worse... they're just not going to get any better. That's a bummer.
Looks like I'll continue using Linux for my domain controllers then. (Not that I take issue with this.)
Personally, I think it's GPL3. Apple isn't the only company reacting negatively to it. Who knows though? I certainly don't.
On the upside that means Apple won't advertise that their server will work as a domain controller anymore which they do now despite the fact that nowhere do they say, "Hey, only old NT4 style domains that don't work for modern Windows clients."
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-removes-Samba-from-Mac-OS-X-10-7-Server-1215179.html
Gist of it :
- less features than Samba
- no more Active Directory Services
- Just file sharing now.
Samba developers have also noted that the true motive behind this move might not be the GPLv3 per say, but a more global move away from the GPL. Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Anyway, Samba v4 could have given them all the "features" they implemented and much more. Their own in-house version won't necessarily be better just because it's written by Apple. The Samba team does a great job with what Microsoft puts out as documentation (if you can even call it that).
Note that from the article, this change only impacts OS X Server. The client was already an in-house solution.
Ick. None of that is good news. Although their current implementation of Samba is old anyway. Things aren't going to get worse... they're just not going to get any better. That's a bummer.
Looks like I'll continue using Linux for my domain controllers then. (Not that I take issue with this.)
Personally, I think it's GPL3. Apple isn't the only company reacting negatively to it. Who knows though? I certainly don't.
On the upside that means Apple won't advertise that their server will work as a domain controller anymore which they do now despite the fact that nowhere do they say, "Hey, only old NT4 style domains that don't work for modern Windows clients."
jfinn1976
Jun 14, 03:56 PM
My local RS said 7:30 pre-orders start on tues the 15th, I sure hope you don't wait until thurs.
macnews
Apr 6, 09:42 AM
I have been hoping for some time that Final Cut Server be integrated into Final Cut. Considering Lion Server is included with Lion, I'd say the chances are pretty high! Finally, some real asset management!
I had the same thought and hope. Asset management is a pain in FCP. Would be nice to see some improvements with that and would be nice to see an easier implementation of creating your own render farm. Even just using one other mac to render w/o having to leave a main edit machine would be nice. Maybe this can be done in the current version but not easily - at least what I have found. Thus, hope it is easier to find/do in a new version.
I had the same thought and hope. Asset management is a pain in FCP. Would be nice to see some improvements with that and would be nice to see an easier implementation of creating your own render farm. Even just using one other mac to render w/o having to leave a main edit machine would be nice. Maybe this can be done in the current version but not easily - at least what I have found. Thus, hope it is easier to find/do in a new version.
maclaptop
Apr 12, 07:41 AM
Again I am amazed at how many people here think a 4" screen is the wave of the future. It is not.
A 4" display is already the standard size.
Just because Apple has not progressed is no indicator of their plans for the upcoming model. To continue to lag behind the rest of the pack with a little display would be sad.
A 4" display is already the standard size.
Just because Apple has not progressed is no indicator of their plans for the upcoming model. To continue to lag behind the rest of the pack with a little display would be sad.
kdarling
Apr 20, 09:17 AM
The key thing here from Apple's standpoint is "Trade Dress".
No one will ever confuse a Samsung F700 with an iPhone. Now way. No how.
However the Galaxy devices are so close to Apple's products in appearance and design, it's very hard to tell them apart. THAT is the problem.
It's ony a problem if the customer can't tell the Samsung is not an Apple device at point of sale.
As for the tablets, I think it'd be pretty hard to confuse a Tab with an iPad, or think that the Tab is made by Apple.
As for the phones, who knows. I have a Fascinate (Verizon Galaxy) and the stock live koi pond wallpaper kind of gives it away, but then I know that Apple doesn't allow that. The big "Samsung" printed on the front is also a major cue.
In either case, Apple could have to come up with proof that normal consumers are actually confused between the products.
Why are you always anti-apple in every
other thread?
When you bash him instead of giving arguments, you lost already. Too many immature kids around here crying "troll" instead of using their brain.
Samsung has no honor.
It seems their problem is that they had access to Apple's design and so were able to copy more closely than is usually the case with Apple competitors.
That's a silly accusation. Why would Apple give Samsung access to their design? They buy parts from them, not cases or software.
The iPhone has been out for years. Plenty of time for Samsung to adopt rounded corners without having any secret info.
Now, if the Galaxy had looked like an iPhone 4.... :)
No one will ever confuse a Samsung F700 with an iPhone. Now way. No how.
However the Galaxy devices are so close to Apple's products in appearance and design, it's very hard to tell them apart. THAT is the problem.
It's ony a problem if the customer can't tell the Samsung is not an Apple device at point of sale.
As for the tablets, I think it'd be pretty hard to confuse a Tab with an iPad, or think that the Tab is made by Apple.
As for the phones, who knows. I have a Fascinate (Verizon Galaxy) and the stock live koi pond wallpaper kind of gives it away, but then I know that Apple doesn't allow that. The big "Samsung" printed on the front is also a major cue.
In either case, Apple could have to come up with proof that normal consumers are actually confused between the products.
Why are you always anti-apple in every
other thread?
When you bash him instead of giving arguments, you lost already. Too many immature kids around here crying "troll" instead of using their brain.
Samsung has no honor.
It seems their problem is that they had access to Apple's design and so were able to copy more closely than is usually the case with Apple competitors.
That's a silly accusation. Why would Apple give Samsung access to their design? They buy parts from them, not cases or software.
The iPhone has been out for years. Plenty of time for Samsung to adopt rounded corners without having any secret info.
Now, if the Galaxy had looked like an iPhone 4.... :)
satzzz
Aug 26, 03:38 AM
Not everywhere is the apple support poor. Here in the netherlands I can't complain about the service and support!
I think it is also because of the knowlegde of apple. They have worked years with the "old" powermacs, and they know how to repair or support every problem and/or hardware, just because there expirience..
Now apple is switching to Intel, They don't have that expirience that they had with the "old" powermacs...
I think it is also because of the knowlegde of apple. They have worked years with the "old" powermacs, and they know how to repair or support every problem and/or hardware, just because there expirience..
Now apple is switching to Intel, They don't have that expirience that they had with the "old" powermacs...
clientsiman
Apr 11, 12:55 PM
No problem for my as I am happy with my 3 years old Sony Ericsson damp phone. I can wait few more months to see if iPhone 5 can make me buy a new phone.
dclocke
Sep 19, 08:24 AM
That isn't exactly what I said, I don't have a problem with people discussing new and upcoming products and features and when we might see them. Count me in.
Its the people that are getting so worked up, annoyed at Apple, threatening to dump the platform and move to Windows, claiming Apple are three months behind Windows systems and generally bitching.
Its all pointless as the same people will start up again with the next technology advances as soon as the Macbook range is updated with Merom.
There's something to be said for that. I apologize if I misunderstood your post...
Its the people that are getting so worked up, annoyed at Apple, threatening to dump the platform and move to Windows, claiming Apple are three months behind Windows systems and generally bitching.
Its all pointless as the same people will start up again with the next technology advances as soon as the Macbook range is updated with Merom.
There's something to be said for that. I apologize if I misunderstood your post...
DesmoPilot
Sep 1, 01:54 AM
Personally, I just hope the tire sounds get a much needed upgrade in GT5.
Glideslope
Apr 25, 03:50 PM
i would bet anything that these two "customers" happen to also be lawyers.
They just can't earn clean money, always have to rip some one to earn it.
+1 ;)
They just can't earn clean money, always have to rip some one to earn it.
+1 ;)
fivepoint
Apr 27, 03:04 PM
Oh boy. Fivepoint, you wouldn't have happened to visit any such site, now would you?
As stated earlier, which you conveniently ignored, I found the article on the Drudge Report. Am I not allowed to read the Drudge Report? Should I keep it exclusively to HuffPo in the future? I read them both, but you tell me how I should do it.
So typical, focus on the messenger and not on the message. Your guys posts are so littered with red herrings and strawmen its almost beyond imagination.
As stated earlier, which you conveniently ignored, I found the article on the Drudge Report. Am I not allowed to read the Drudge Report? Should I keep it exclusively to HuffPo in the future? I read them both, but you tell me how I should do it.
So typical, focus on the messenger and not on the message. Your guys posts are so littered with red herrings and strawmen its almost beyond imagination.
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
Peace
Aug 6, 01:51 PM
As Apple applied for the trademark, it will not be approved.
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
Domain Name: MAC-PRO.COM
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
Domain Name: MAC-PRO.COM
QCassidy352
Aug 15, 01:12 PM
oh WOW. Considering that a single 1.67 G4 beats a dual 2.0 core duo in photoshop when the core duo has to use rosetta, the fact that the xeon is nearly even is amazing. That thing is going to be amazing when CS3 comes out! :eek:
MrNomNoms
Apr 10, 04:08 AM
Hoping for some better multi-core support(although probably going to have to wait for Lion for the newer QuickTime engine) and a UI that isn't from the 90's. Only thing that's changed is the scroll bars.
In Lion they're providing AV Foundation which leads me to believe that QtKit will be a stripped down bare basic framework with AV Foundation going to be used for future heavy lifting projects. In Snow Leopard AV Foundation is provided but it is a private framework so the rumours a while ago that Lion version will be 'better' than the Snow Leopard sounds that it'll probably rely on AV Foundation in Snow Leopard but the Lion version, the one with the AV Foundation that is a public API, will probably have more features etc.
In Lion they're providing AV Foundation which leads me to believe that QtKit will be a stripped down bare basic framework with AV Foundation going to be used for future heavy lifting projects. In Snow Leopard AV Foundation is provided but it is a private framework so the rumours a while ago that Lion version will be 'better' than the Snow Leopard sounds that it'll probably rely on AV Foundation in Snow Leopard but the Lion version, the one with the AV Foundation that is a public API, will probably have more features etc.
Lone Deranger
Mar 31, 05:30 PM
To put it in Nelson's words:
BaldiMac
Apr 19, 03:20 PM
You're wrong. Apple is losing marketshare for over 2 years now. Just because they are selling MORE iPhones doesn't mean they are gaining marketshare. The market grows much faster than the iPhone sales. Have a look at Nokia: In Q4/10 Nokia sold almost 7 million more smartphones but they lost about 10% marketshare.
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=985912
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1372013
iPhone Worldwide smartphone market share
Q1 2008 5.3%
Q1 2009 10.8%
Q1 2010 15.4%
Q1 2011 ???
How have they been losing market share for two years now?
In Q1/11 Apple lost about 2% marketshare despite the fact that they sold about 2.5 million more iPhones. Just read the latest GfK numbers (needs registered account), it's all in there. NDP numbers for Q1/11 will be released next week if you trust them more.
2.5 million more? Apple has likely sold more than double then number of iPhones in q1 2011 than q1 2010 (8.75 million).
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=985912
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1372013
iPhone Worldwide smartphone market share
Q1 2008 5.3%
Q1 2009 10.8%
Q1 2010 15.4%
Q1 2011 ???
How have they been losing market share for two years now?
In Q1/11 Apple lost about 2% marketshare despite the fact that they sold about 2.5 million more iPhones. Just read the latest GfK numbers (needs registered account), it's all in there. NDP numbers for Q1/11 will be released next week if you trust them more.
2.5 million more? Apple has likely sold more than double then number of iPhones in q1 2011 than q1 2010 (8.75 million).
No comments:
Post a Comment