jxyama
Mar 19, 09:26 AM
Apple Computer, Inc.: Proudly dying since 1976. :rolleyes:
if apple really was dying, the last thing it needs to do is to listen to amateur marketing gurus and online petitions.
is the apple marketshare lower than it used to be in the 90s? yes, absolutely. that doesn't mean apple is dying - that it's on the blink of an extinction. a company with nearly $4 billion in cash reserve with no debt will be able to carry on for quite some time... (gee, how long have gateway been dying?)
funny you mention japan. last time i went to tokyo (oct. '03), i was hard pressed to find any store with an electronics/computer department that didn't carry any macs.
if apple really was dying, the last thing it needs to do is to listen to amateur marketing gurus and online petitions.
is the apple marketshare lower than it used to be in the 90s? yes, absolutely. that doesn't mean apple is dying - that it's on the blink of an extinction. a company with nearly $4 billion in cash reserve with no debt will be able to carry on for quite some time... (gee, how long have gateway been dying?)
funny you mention japan. last time i went to tokyo (oct. '03), i was hard pressed to find any store with an electronics/computer department that didn't carry any macs.
Baseline
Nov 15, 08:41 AM
seriously though, how hard is it to get a program to multi-thread? (if thats the right term; being a complete programming novice, i've no idea)
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.
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.
jgould
Feb 20, 07:38 PM
New display?
Nope. Same 19" Acer that I've had for the last year or so. Only changes have been placement of stuff as well as the addition of the MBP, keyboard and trackpad...
Nope. Same 19" Acer that I've had for the last year or so. Only changes have been placement of stuff as well as the addition of the MBP, keyboard and trackpad...
Hellhammer
Jun 23, 04:11 AM
No thank you! Touch is useless in computer size of an iMac as after 10 mins your arma are full of pain and it's ridiculously slow too.
Evangelion
Aug 26, 10:09 AM
Folks need to be careful when making G5 to Conroe/etc. comparisons....
The PPC 970FX (single core G5 which was in the iMac G5) has a TDP below that of a Conroe.
FX was used in the xServe, and they couldn't get dual-core CPU in there. As soon as they moved to woodcrest, they could replace that 2x G5 with 2x dual-core Woodcrests. Says quite a bit about how hot they run....
The PPC 970FX (single core G5 which was in the iMac G5) has a TDP below that of a Conroe.
FX was used in the xServe, and they couldn't get dual-core CPU in there. As soon as they moved to woodcrest, they could replace that 2x G5 with 2x dual-core Woodcrests. Says quite a bit about how hot they run....
AppleIntelRock
Dec 31, 12:18 AM
I'm still not toally sold on the whole iTv thing. Hopefully an apple TV would have one of these built in. $299 seems very expensive for such low quality files.
macmunch
Jul 19, 06:45 PM
Thats very cool !
I see high chance to even better Results ...
1. Look for People which wait for the Mac Pro (its me and at least 3-4 of my friends, 2 of them Switchers)
2. iPod no major new features (New model will boost Sales)
3. More Stores ---> more People who learn about Macs and try them out (50% new to mac in stores) ----> Here is much Space in Europe ecspecially in Germany !!! Every 11 or 12 PC user knows Mac or OS X, some know Apple cause of the iPod ....
4. The Good old guys which wait for Revision 2 of a Mac :D
bye
I see high chance to even better Results ...
1. Look for People which wait for the Mac Pro (its me and at least 3-4 of my friends, 2 of them Switchers)
2. iPod no major new features (New model will boost Sales)
3. More Stores ---> more People who learn about Macs and try them out (50% new to mac in stores) ----> Here is much Space in Europe ecspecially in Germany !!! Every 11 or 12 PC user knows Mac or OS X, some know Apple cause of the iPod ....
4. The Good old guys which wait for Revision 2 of a Mac :D
bye
N10248
Mar 24, 06:48 PM
Couldn't they simply upgrade that as well? I can't imagine why they couldn't. I mean we are talking future Mac Pros.
It would most likely make the Mac Pro more expensive even if you go with the cheapest graphics card as all Mac Pros would have to have a better PSU Just in case the owner decides to upgrade the card later.
It would most likely make the Mac Pro more expensive even if you go with the cheapest graphics card as all Mac Pros would have to have a better PSU Just in case the owner decides to upgrade the card later.
kriskkalu
Jan 5, 06:31 PM
At macworld 2007 Apple will announce that you can download The Beatles music on iTunes and possible there will be a Beatles branded iPod.
flyfish29
Mar 27, 07:50 AM
I don't think MS dropping IE was because of Apple's market share.MSIE was more of a gesture than anything else, since it never supported activeX wich was the only real major reason for needing IE6...
I don't think I ever said it had anything to do with market share. I also believe that MSIE was all about getting M$ software on the mac which in their minds would make it easier to get other proprietary software on the mac ie. Windows Media Player which integrated better with IE than Netscape at the time. NOt to mention that they wanted to get rid of Netscape to (in their minds) have a heavy hand in internet development which they did.
I don't think I ever said it had anything to do with market share. I also believe that MSIE was all about getting M$ software on the mac which in their minds would make it easier to get other proprietary software on the mac ie. Windows Media Player which integrated better with IE than Netscape at the time. NOt to mention that they wanted to get rid of Netscape to (in their minds) have a heavy hand in internet development which they did.
SeaFox
Dec 28, 12:38 AM
Your the one who said a TV wouldn�t even work as a monitor.
Uh, I said no such thing. Feel free to quote the sentence where I said that.
Back on post 127 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3185268&postcount=127) of this thread you said:
"Ok, I don�t know what a slingbox is� and I thought it was going to stream or operate like a TiVo, where it downloads while you are asleep, so it would need a harddrive."
The point is it is going to stream, but not over the internet, it's going to stream from your Macs on your home network (Airport or otherwise), and TiVo doesn't download anything while you sleep, except an interactive TV guide.
Here's the homepage (http://www.slingmedia.com/indexa.php) of Slingbox's makers. A Slingbox is made to transmit a signal from a digital cable or satellite receiver over the internet, and allow a person to control the receiver. This would allow you to watch your service anywhere conceivably.
then you said:
"Also, I�m not sure what you mean by TV? Do you mean a CRT with an aspect of 4:3? And, I would assume you don�t mean a flat panel LCD or Plasma, which now outsells tube tvs? A small HD plasma is 42�� and cost about $1000. I just got a Panny 9UK HD Plasma and it works quite will with a mac mini."
Why would you assume I don't mean a Plasma or LCD? They are types of TV's as well. I don't have n HDTV but if I did I would probably get a tube-based HDTV because of the lower cost and better picture (less image ghosting, better color). Plus you stated Plasma and LCD TV's outsell tube-based, which I don't believe. Sounds like a line the TV salesmen gave you.
You consistently rearrange some of my post where I�m just speculating. And at the same time you avoid my main points.
I don't rearrange anything. I separate your posts into separate thoughts. I did split ONE sentence on the last reply. Each portion of your replies appear in the same order they did in your original post. Yes, I have cut material out, but the purpose of quoting a previous post isn't to repeat it in it's entirety.
I also realize by streaming a movie we would just be renting it, but as a BluRay cost $1000, and if iTV is significantly less to watch the same movie in HD, this would be a reasonable solution. You also said you were waiting for the battle to be settled and that�s consistent to what I was pointing out that HD iTV would have a niche.
Except Apple doesn't offer movies in HD. HD is still a niche itself until there is wider adoption of HD sets. It's a chicken and the egg problem. There's no rush to buy an HD set untill there is lots of exclusive programming for HDTV owners. But there will be little if any programming available in HD that is not available in SD as well untill more people buy HD sets, because advertisers want their message getting in front of as many eyes as possible. There's a reason cablecos only offer a dozen or so stations of HD out of the 250+ channels they offer.
The price of HD-DVD and BluRay players both will fall soon. Just as the price of HDTV's is going to fall through the floor in the U.S. after analog broadcasting gets pulled in 2009. Digital TV (and by extension, HD) will no longer be a luxury service for the wealthy.
You could also buy a PS3, a BluRay player for as low as $600. :D
Uh, I said no such thing. Feel free to quote the sentence where I said that.
Back on post 127 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3185268&postcount=127) of this thread you said:
"Ok, I don�t know what a slingbox is� and I thought it was going to stream or operate like a TiVo, where it downloads while you are asleep, so it would need a harddrive."
The point is it is going to stream, but not over the internet, it's going to stream from your Macs on your home network (Airport or otherwise), and TiVo doesn't download anything while you sleep, except an interactive TV guide.
Here's the homepage (http://www.slingmedia.com/indexa.php) of Slingbox's makers. A Slingbox is made to transmit a signal from a digital cable or satellite receiver over the internet, and allow a person to control the receiver. This would allow you to watch your service anywhere conceivably.
then you said:
"Also, I�m not sure what you mean by TV? Do you mean a CRT with an aspect of 4:3? And, I would assume you don�t mean a flat panel LCD or Plasma, which now outsells tube tvs? A small HD plasma is 42�� and cost about $1000. I just got a Panny 9UK HD Plasma and it works quite will with a mac mini."
Why would you assume I don't mean a Plasma or LCD? They are types of TV's as well. I don't have n HDTV but if I did I would probably get a tube-based HDTV because of the lower cost and better picture (less image ghosting, better color). Plus you stated Plasma and LCD TV's outsell tube-based, which I don't believe. Sounds like a line the TV salesmen gave you.
You consistently rearrange some of my post where I�m just speculating. And at the same time you avoid my main points.
I don't rearrange anything. I separate your posts into separate thoughts. I did split ONE sentence on the last reply. Each portion of your replies appear in the same order they did in your original post. Yes, I have cut material out, but the purpose of quoting a previous post isn't to repeat it in it's entirety.
I also realize by streaming a movie we would just be renting it, but as a BluRay cost $1000, and if iTV is significantly less to watch the same movie in HD, this would be a reasonable solution. You also said you were waiting for the battle to be settled and that�s consistent to what I was pointing out that HD iTV would have a niche.
Except Apple doesn't offer movies in HD. HD is still a niche itself until there is wider adoption of HD sets. It's a chicken and the egg problem. There's no rush to buy an HD set untill there is lots of exclusive programming for HDTV owners. But there will be little if any programming available in HD that is not available in SD as well untill more people buy HD sets, because advertisers want their message getting in front of as many eyes as possible. There's a reason cablecos only offer a dozen or so stations of HD out of the 250+ channels they offer.
The price of HD-DVD and BluRay players both will fall soon. Just as the price of HDTV's is going to fall through the floor in the U.S. after analog broadcasting gets pulled in 2009. Digital TV (and by extension, HD) will no longer be a luxury service for the wealthy.
You could also buy a PS3, a BluRay player for as low as $600. :D
gauriemma
Jul 18, 04:17 PM
Apple are allowed to change their minds about the purpose of iPod / iTunes ( just like a woman , as we keep on being reminded! ) :-)
When you rent a movie from Rogers, blockbusters etc, you watch the movie to their schedule...
Which is exactly why I don't rent movies from Blockbuster, etc...
When you rent a movie from Rogers, blockbusters etc, you watch the movie to their schedule...
Which is exactly why I don't rent movies from Blockbuster, etc...
Cougarcat
Mar 22, 04:07 PM
The chance that the iPod Classic is updated to 220GB is zero. Apple has no plans to ever update a hard drive based non-touch portable device (they would not waste their time), and they've shown even less interest in increasing the capacity of any device beyond even 64GB flash.
Tony
Flash is still expensive, that's why we haven't seen anything bigger than the 64 GB touch yet.
As for the iPod Classic, the reason it wasn't updated last year was because the 220 GB drive didn't exist. It would require very little effort on their part to swap out the 160 drive with this one, so if they do keep it around I'd be surprised if they didn't upgrade it come september.
Tony
Flash is still expensive, that's why we haven't seen anything bigger than the 64 GB touch yet.
As for the iPod Classic, the reason it wasn't updated last year was because the 220 GB drive didn't exist. It would require very little effort on their part to swap out the 160 drive with this one, so if they do keep it around I'd be surprised if they didn't upgrade it come september.
Multimedia
Sep 6, 12:39 PM
Look, they discontinued the $50 BTO superdrive option on the lower end model. Are they purposely trying to drive me to Velocity Micro?The SAVE refurb page has what you want for $649. If you really want that model, pull the trigger.
boncellis
Jul 18, 02:51 PM
I have mixed feelings about this. The only way I see this really becoming big is if Apple releases a Mac Mini media center. By so doing, Apple will catch a huge market of people who say, "What do you want to watch tonight?" How many times have you been in this situation. You've looked at all your movies, which you've seen at least three times each, and decide that you don't have anything you want to watch. Would if, from your remote, you had a whole movie store IN YOUR HOME? That's right. Who needs to go to Blockbuster or wait for NetFlix. Just point, click, and...hello, movie. You get to keep it for a few days.
This will only work, though, if it is that easy. If people have to figure out their own way to get it to the TV, they will simply go get the DVD from Blockbuster, because the player is already hooked up to the TV. If Apple wants to make it in the movie business, they need to build something that is meant to hook up to the TV right OUT OF THE BOX.
I'm excited to see it!
Right. Just like that super successful venture Moviebeam.
This will only work, though, if it is that easy. If people have to figure out their own way to get it to the TV, they will simply go get the DVD from Blockbuster, because the player is already hooked up to the TV. If Apple wants to make it in the movie business, they need to build something that is meant to hook up to the TV right OUT OF THE BOX.
I'm excited to see it!
Right. Just like that super successful venture Moviebeam.
HecubusPro
Sep 1, 01:48 PM
One more thing... they'll change the name from iMac to Mac, bringing a perfect symmetry to their product line-up:
Mac
Mac Pro
MacBook
MacBook Pro
Definitely not. There's too much branding in the iMac name. For consumers, it means ease and simplicity with power and looks. Additionally, just calling it Mac would be confusing for everyone, especially when they ask what kind of mac you own?
"I own a Mac."
"Yeah? What kind?"
"A Mac."
"I know. You just said that. But what kind of mac?"
"A Mac. You know. A Mac."
"I'm going to kill you now, sir."
Mac
Mac Pro
MacBook
MacBook Pro
Definitely not. There's too much branding in the iMac name. For consumers, it means ease and simplicity with power and looks. Additionally, just calling it Mac would be confusing for everyone, especially when they ask what kind of mac you own?
"I own a Mac."
"Yeah? What kind?"
"A Mac."
"I know. You just said that. But what kind of mac?"
"A Mac. You know. A Mac."
"I'm going to kill you now, sir."
SuperCachetes
Mar 22, 12:16 PM
.
spencers
Feb 23, 02:41 PM
Fantastic setup, would love to get those speakers, I'm in the UK also, what make/model of speakers ?
Elegant setup. What speaker is that?
Stop being lazy and click the Flickr link he posted and you'll find out. :p
Elegant setup. What speaker is that?
Stop being lazy and click the Flickr link he posted and you'll find out. :p
hunkaburningluv
Mar 26, 08:28 AM
If someone had come out with a console allowing for full-color 1024x768 touchscreen controllers the other consoles would be scrambling to catch up. Even if that controller cost $499.
While there are some nits here (30fps isn't exactly ideal performance, the dongle connection seems too flimsy for real gameplay, etc) I think this is a huge step forward in gaming.
Nintendo and Microsoft should be shaking in their boots right now.
As a rather casual gamer, I'd love to see the bastard love-child of this and kinect.
you think? I think no none would buy the $499 controller as it's too expensive for a controller.
Ninty and M$ have nothing to worry about anything that apple does in relation to games will supplement the market as it is.
Not really. Properly designed controls on touch screen will be just fine... You will see...
Anyone who thinks that the long-term viability of the IOS ecosystem as a significant home game player because of the lack of hard controls is just missing the picture.
I can't figure out why some people think you have to look at the screen of a touchscreen device to use it to manipulate things in a game world. Between rotation and movement of the device itself with properly placed buttons you can do a lot with it, none of it requiring looking at the touch screen.
I suspect most people could distinguish between the lower left corner of their device and the upper right corner, for instance, without looking at the screen.
There is still a vast difference in the tactility (sp) and force feed back that hardcore gamers won't take too - as much as I don't like modern warfare, but I doubt the metric crapload of players would prefer to play with touch controls
but when you remove the need for look at a touch screen, then why need it? A simple touch pad would suffice. By removing the need to look at the screen, you remove the point of it.
Hardcore gaming will never change to the extent it doesn't need a controller and as such the market isn't going to change. Sure I can't wait until I play starcraft or the like on an ipad, but I won't be ditching any of my consoles.
While there are some nits here (30fps isn't exactly ideal performance, the dongle connection seems too flimsy for real gameplay, etc) I think this is a huge step forward in gaming.
Nintendo and Microsoft should be shaking in their boots right now.
As a rather casual gamer, I'd love to see the bastard love-child of this and kinect.
you think? I think no none would buy the $499 controller as it's too expensive for a controller.
Ninty and M$ have nothing to worry about anything that apple does in relation to games will supplement the market as it is.
Not really. Properly designed controls on touch screen will be just fine... You will see...
Anyone who thinks that the long-term viability of the IOS ecosystem as a significant home game player because of the lack of hard controls is just missing the picture.
I can't figure out why some people think you have to look at the screen of a touchscreen device to use it to manipulate things in a game world. Between rotation and movement of the device itself with properly placed buttons you can do a lot with it, none of it requiring looking at the touch screen.
I suspect most people could distinguish between the lower left corner of their device and the upper right corner, for instance, without looking at the screen.
There is still a vast difference in the tactility (sp) and force feed back that hardcore gamers won't take too - as much as I don't like modern warfare, but I doubt the metric crapload of players would prefer to play with touch controls
but when you remove the need for look at a touch screen, then why need it? A simple touch pad would suffice. By removing the need to look at the screen, you remove the point of it.
Hardcore gaming will never change to the extent it doesn't need a controller and as such the market isn't going to change. Sure I can't wait until I play starcraft or the like on an ipad, but I won't be ditching any of my consoles.
apple-science
Jul 19, 05:15 PM
Would be interesting to see the trajectory of sales. Jobs usually shows such a graph at the keynotes - anyone got the data to post to see if the trend is slowing and by how much?
It's remarkable that iPods are still selling so well given the stale refresh rate. Still, Microsoft would love a piece of 8.1 million sales for Zune.....
It's remarkable that iPods are still selling so well given the stale refresh rate. Still, Microsoft would love a piece of 8.1 million sales for Zune.....
Jason Beck
Mar 25, 04:49 PM
Wireless controllers for iPad and TV dock or something please.
jav6454
Mar 24, 01:48 PM
Probably a daft question but i'll ask anyhows so forgive my techie noobness!
With the advent of thunderbolt and its high bandwidth, will it possible for a gfx card to be sited externally in some kind of cradle and be used as the main gfx card or wouldn't the internal "plumbing" allow it to happen ?
/noob mode off
;)
It would be very well possible. Remember, Thunderbolt is derived from LightPeak. One of the reasons to develop LightPeak was to transmit data at very fast rates over a distance. Essentially, not have everything so closed together.
In other words, you can the CPU in room A and the RAM in room B which is 20 feet away and get the same result. This is one of the reasons Intel developed LightPeak. There are many other reasons for development obviously.
However, Thunderbolt in its current stage is not suited for such lengthy exchange due to its copper nature. However, say you have a GFX cradle on your desk, you could well use Thunderbolt's current implementation to feed data. However, you'd need multiple implementations of Thunderbolt in order for it to work great. Currently, many GFX solutions use PCIe 2.0 x16 interface which pretty much uses 8 GB/s bandwidth so one Thunderbolt interface will do fine and still have a nice 2GB/s overhead. However, the newer PCIe 3.0 interface pushes 16GB/s now so you'd need two Thunderbolt interfaces.
With the advent of thunderbolt and its high bandwidth, will it possible for a gfx card to be sited externally in some kind of cradle and be used as the main gfx card or wouldn't the internal "plumbing" allow it to happen ?
/noob mode off
;)
It would be very well possible. Remember, Thunderbolt is derived from LightPeak. One of the reasons to develop LightPeak was to transmit data at very fast rates over a distance. Essentially, not have everything so closed together.
In other words, you can the CPU in room A and the RAM in room B which is 20 feet away and get the same result. This is one of the reasons Intel developed LightPeak. There are many other reasons for development obviously.
However, Thunderbolt in its current stage is not suited for such lengthy exchange due to its copper nature. However, say you have a GFX cradle on your desk, you could well use Thunderbolt's current implementation to feed data. However, you'd need multiple implementations of Thunderbolt in order for it to work great. Currently, many GFX solutions use PCIe 2.0 x16 interface which pretty much uses 8 GB/s bandwidth so one Thunderbolt interface will do fine and still have a nice 2GB/s overhead. However, the newer PCIe 3.0 interface pushes 16GB/s now so you'd need two Thunderbolt interfaces.
kingtj
Mar 22, 04:56 PM
For starters, current models of iPods can also hold podcasts, photo collections and other video! If you have a good sized music collection and/or any of this other stuff? Yes, filling 220GB is VERY possible!
Beyond that, though? I'm in the camp of people who really like the iPod Classic. The "touch" models are less appropriate to leave in a car, attached to a stereo system. My 120GB Classic spends 90% of its time in my car, inside the glove-box, attached to an interface cable. I usually only pull it out when I want to update it in some manner, or when I'm actually headed out someplace like a park where I might want to stick a pair of headphones in it and use it. The iPod Touch is more of an all-purpose "pocket computer" that you can play games on and everything else. Fine, but sometimes you just want a good device with plenty of storage space that plays your media.
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.
Beyond that, though? I'm in the camp of people who really like the iPod Classic. The "touch" models are less appropriate to leave in a car, attached to a stereo system. My 120GB Classic spends 90% of its time in my car, inside the glove-box, attached to an interface cable. I usually only pull it out when I want to update it in some manner, or when I'm actually headed out someplace like a park where I might want to stick a pair of headphones in it and use it. The iPod Touch is more of an all-purpose "pocket computer" that you can play games on and everything else. Fine, but sometimes you just want a good device with plenty of storage space that plays your media.
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.
jnc
Apr 3, 06:07 AM
Did anyone else thing that was a really bad advert? They hardly showed the product fully at all!
Reacent Post
0 comments:
Post a Comment