aiqw9182
Mar 24, 03:16 PM
I'd rather have a CPU that is a bit slower for non-OpenCL tasks, than a computer that is faster at that but is unusable for other things because it doesn't have OpenCL.
Tad slower? If history repeats itself Intel's CPU will completely destroy AMD's offering. It won't be a bit slower, it will be a lot slower. Tell me when OpenCL suddenly becomes a requirement. Enjoy your vaporware bro. I'm sure your Llano machine will outperform Sandy Bridge in a few years when applications actually use the technology. Assuming said Sandy Bridge machine doesn't have discrete graphics. I'd love to know these apps you are using by the way and what your career is. If you are so serious about OpenCL then you shouldn't be purchasing a machine with an IGP to begin with.
Also I had a good chuckle at this:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=12048219
"The future is fusion"
So you are a spokesperson for AMD?
Tad slower? If history repeats itself Intel's CPU will completely destroy AMD's offering. It won't be a bit slower, it will be a lot slower. Tell me when OpenCL suddenly becomes a requirement. Enjoy your vaporware bro. I'm sure your Llano machine will outperform Sandy Bridge in a few years when applications actually use the technology. Assuming said Sandy Bridge machine doesn't have discrete graphics. I'd love to know these apps you are using by the way and what your career is. If you are so serious about OpenCL then you shouldn't be purchasing a machine with an IGP to begin with.
Also I had a good chuckle at this:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=12048219
"The future is fusion"
So you are a spokesperson for AMD?
bigpics
Mar 24, 02:27 PM
My problem ... is that then you've been set up for the next decrease in quality, and the one after that, and the one after that. Eventually you're buying 128,000 bps tracks and making fun of "audiophiles" who can tell the difference, and then one of the true triumphs of 20th Century technology—really good audio reproduction—is lost.
Video that can't be told from the real thing is never going to happen in my lifetime, but with sound we were there—and then threw it away!
All of what you said! Especially the part quoted -and the true nut of it that I took the liberty of bolding. The "dumbing down" of our ears continues apace.
And I forgot to mention things like what (even "HD") radio stations are doing to the signal - e.g., compressing nearly all popular music to a 20 db maximum dynamic range, and in some cases even speeding up the play (while "correcting" for frequency), allowing a better fit with their commercial breaks.
Video that can't be told from the real thing is never going to happen in my lifetime, but with sound we were there—and then threw it away!
All of what you said! Especially the part quoted -and the true nut of it that I took the liberty of bolding. The "dumbing down" of our ears continues apace.
And I forgot to mention things like what (even "HD") radio stations are doing to the signal - e.g., compressing nearly all popular music to a 20 db maximum dynamic range, and in some cases even speeding up the play (while "correcting" for frequency), allowing a better fit with their commercial breaks.
twoodcc
Oct 4, 11:54 AM
well i finally made it to 7 digits. over 1 million points for folding@home. now we just need more people to get the team striving again
extrafuzzyllama
Sep 29, 11:23 PM
is that lime case tpu or silicon?
noahtk
Apr 2, 09:28 PM
It's always MAGICAL anymore with Apple.
tbobmccoy
Mar 23, 11:04 AM
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the blind. The Classic is the only iPod (other than the tiny Shuffle) that would be of any use to them. The 128,000 bps that's suicide-inducing for music is (sort of) OK for voice, and 220 GB would hold a LOT of Books on "Tape"�Hell, record your lectures too and you could carry a college education in your pocket! I expect quite a negative reaction from handicapped activists if they discontinue the iPod Classic.
Very true. For some, physical keys are essential, and until they create a way to modify the screen to incorporate tactile buttons on demand, there need to be physical key devices out there for those that cannot see. I do think that they will discontinue the use of hard drives sometime soon, though. Flash memory is just the way of the future.
Very true. For some, physical keys are essential, and until they create a way to modify the screen to incorporate tactile buttons on demand, there need to be physical key devices out there for those that cannot see. I do think that they will discontinue the use of hard drives sometime soon, though. Flash memory is just the way of the future.
rockstarjoe
Jul 18, 02:31 PM
Why not offer both a subscription and an a-la-carte system? The rental movies could be cheaper, lesser quality and last for only a certain amount of plays/days while the ones you buy to own can be of higher quality, more expensive and you get to keep it.
I think you are on to something here. I believe it will work like this:
!) Rent a movie from the ITMS and it will download (not stream) to your computer. It will be in a less than DVD quality format, most likely in whatever format plays on 6G ipod. Let's face it, the 6G ipod and the iTunes Movie service will both be announced at the same time, and that time is not WWDC. The movie sales will drive 6G ipod sales, therefore they must play on 6G ipods, therefore they will not be DVD quality.
2) Movies will have a limited number of plays, rather than a limited number of time to view. Or, alternately, you will pay-per-view (literally).
3) The movie rentals will be cheap (under $5). If you like the movie you will have the option to buy the DVD. Buying the DVD through iTMS will "unlock" the rented copy of the movie on your hardrive, allowing you to own it forever and also to burn it to DVD if you choose (although, again, it will be in less than DVD quality). The real copy of the DVD will be full price plus shipping and the hard copy of the DVD will arrive in the mail a few days later. It will be the same as the retail copy.
This means money for Apple from movie rentals, plus money for Apple from 6G ipod sales (and perhaps Mac Minis if Frontrow gets added in to this), plus money for the BIG STUDIOS for the rentals AND the DVD sales.
It is a win-win-win for the consumer, Apple, and the movie studios... thus I think this is the only way it will happen. What do you guys think? :)
I think you are on to something here. I believe it will work like this:
!) Rent a movie from the ITMS and it will download (not stream) to your computer. It will be in a less than DVD quality format, most likely in whatever format plays on 6G ipod. Let's face it, the 6G ipod and the iTunes Movie service will both be announced at the same time, and that time is not WWDC. The movie sales will drive 6G ipod sales, therefore they must play on 6G ipods, therefore they will not be DVD quality.
2) Movies will have a limited number of plays, rather than a limited number of time to view. Or, alternately, you will pay-per-view (literally).
3) The movie rentals will be cheap (under $5). If you like the movie you will have the option to buy the DVD. Buying the DVD through iTMS will "unlock" the rented copy of the movie on your hardrive, allowing you to own it forever and also to burn it to DVD if you choose (although, again, it will be in less than DVD quality). The real copy of the DVD will be full price plus shipping and the hard copy of the DVD will arrive in the mail a few days later. It will be the same as the retail copy.
This means money for Apple from movie rentals, plus money for Apple from 6G ipod sales (and perhaps Mac Minis if Frontrow gets added in to this), plus money for the BIG STUDIOS for the rentals AND the DVD sales.
It is a win-win-win for the consumer, Apple, and the movie studios... thus I think this is the only way it will happen. What do you guys think? :)
furious
Nov 29, 07:55 PM
I'll speak loud and clear:
DVR
iTunes Store can't now nor will it likely ever replace Dish Network for me. Just let me record my shows either directly with iTV or via something connected to it. I hope when this is released, HD DVD and Blu-ray make there way into Macs.
that would be nice
DVR
iTunes Store can't now nor will it likely ever replace Dish Network for me. Just let me record my shows either directly with iTV or via something connected to it. I hope when this is released, HD DVD and Blu-ray make there way into Macs.
that would be nice
nagromme
Aug 6, 11:26 PM
Whatever is or is not shown about Leopard/Macs, be sure to enjoy the spectacular howling from those who assume that nothing ELSE will ever emerge about Leopard/Macs. From those who assume that if it's not mentioned on THIS particular date, Apple is doomed and it's too late :D You heard it here first: any Macs that don't appear tomorrow will NEVER appear, and Leopard will have NOTHING except what is shown tomorrow ;) It's life or death... if any rumors turn out to be only rumors, the platform is dead :)
reel2reel
Apr 12, 09:53 PM
Viewer built into the browser now. Weird but makes sense I guess.
stoid
Mar 18, 09:37 AM
People have been hollering for a cheaper Mac every since there has been Macintosh. You must realize that Apple, unlike most computer companies, is in the business of creating quality products. Were Apple to release a cheap Mac it would shatter Apple's reputation of making slick quality products that are a joy to own. If you want a cheap pile of crap computer that you'll have to throw away in a year, go buy Dell of whatever. That's not Apple's target market.
stevehp
Oct 23, 09:32 AM
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/intelcoreduo.html
That no longer exists. Go to the mbp page and click the core duo icon, and I get a page not found.
This will probably change by the time anyone verifies it. :rolleyes:
not working for me either!
That no longer exists. Go to the mbp page and click the core duo icon, and I get a page not found.
This will probably change by the time anyone verifies it. :rolleyes:
not working for me either!
iPadztr
Mar 25, 03:52 PM
Who wouldve thought :). GG
puuukeey
Sep 1, 02:43 PM
if it gets bigger, does it get thinner?
vand0576
Sep 1, 01:09 PM
Hmm... the problem with that line-up is that when consumers see the shiny new advert saying "Meet the new iMacs" they'll look at the clock speeds and say "What new iMacs?". I think it would be reasonable for Apple to offer...
17" iMac - $1,199 - 2 GHz, X1650 Pro 128 MB
20" iMac - $1,699 - 2.16 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
23" iMac - $2,199 - 2.33 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
I think EVERYONE's suggested prices are way too high, even for a chip upgrade. They'll want to do a cost comparison for these new machines the same way they did the Mac Pro. iMacs are still quite overpriced compared to similar desktops from other companies, even with monitors. Bring those prices down Apple, and you'll have a TON of "switchers" with these machines.
17" iMac - $1,199 - 2 GHz, X1650 Pro 128 MB
20" iMac - $1,699 - 2.16 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
23" iMac - $2,199 - 2.33 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
I think EVERYONE's suggested prices are way too high, even for a chip upgrade. They'll want to do a cost comparison for these new machines the same way they did the Mac Pro. iMacs are still quite overpriced compared to similar desktops from other companies, even with monitors. Bring those prices down Apple, and you'll have a TON of "switchers" with these machines.
dextertangocci
Jul 15, 01:03 PM
As to just web-surfing.... In the time of few years my internet-connection has moved from 512KB to 8MB. I could go to 12 or 24MB right now. The speed-increase has been FAST.
Wow. In South Africa the fastest internet connection we have is 1MB, or if you get HSDPA, 1.*MB:o :( :rolleyes: Plus it's a RIP OFF!!:mad:
Wow. In South Africa the fastest internet connection we have is 1MB, or if you get HSDPA, 1.*MB:o :( :rolleyes: Plus it's a RIP OFF!!:mad:
macnews
Jul 20, 02:33 AM
*Most critical applications will be converted by September*
Interesting...
I found this to be most interesting. I think we could actually see some Adobe apps by Septemeber. Adobe has been going on an 18-24 month cycle and based when CS2 was released Sept/Oct would be 18 months and 24 would be April when Adobe has said basically "no later than".
Interesting...
I found this to be most interesting. I think we could actually see some Adobe apps by Septemeber. Adobe has been going on an 18-24 month cycle and based when CS2 was released Sept/Oct would be 18 months and 24 would be April when Adobe has said basically "no later than".
fun173
Jan 28, 10:00 PM
^^ It may be an illusion but are your rear tires smaller than the front ones? Anyways, you have an awesome car. Looks very nice.
DaveN
Mar 4, 08:12 PM
From the first article "A diesel Cruze would be about 12 percent more fuel efficient than the ECO, but diesel is about 9 percent more expensive than gasoline, eliminating the majority of the benefit." Also from the article, the ECO costs $19,000. In England, GM charges an extra $2700 for the diesel version. So it looks like you have to drive a lot of miles before you break even.
Am I anti diesel? Hardly, I bought a diesel Dodge Ram back in 1999 and still have it. At the time the initial cost was several thousand more than a gas model. Diesel fuel at that time was significantly less expensive than gasoline and the fuel economy was a lot better. I still have that truck though for my daily commute, I drive my Chevy Lumina as it gets 20 mpg in town (much better than my truck). If fuel prices keep going up, a may commute by bicycle this summer... I may do that anyway for health reasons though not if it gets too hot.
Am I anti diesel? Hardly, I bought a diesel Dodge Ram back in 1999 and still have it. At the time the initial cost was several thousand more than a gas model. Diesel fuel at that time was significantly less expensive than gasoline and the fuel economy was a lot better. I still have that truck though for my daily commute, I drive my Chevy Lumina as it gets 20 mpg in town (much better than my truck). If fuel prices keep going up, a may commute by bicycle this summer... I may do that anyway for health reasons though not if it gets too hot.
robbieduncan
Apr 9, 04:39 PM
Maybe they are rare where you live. In the UK and the rest of Europe they are more common that automatics.
ChrisA
Jul 18, 03:28 PM
How many of you who buy DVDs watch them more then once? More then twice? More than 20 times? Ok I've bought videos for my kids whaen they were in preschool nd they watched the same video 20 times in a row over a two week priod. So I'll aks "how many adults would want to watch the same DVD multiple times?" I figure almost no one would. So why buy a video. Renting seems the best. So now what you do is find a rental outfit that has the best terms
Apple will have the problem of balancing video quality with download times. I think a DVD quality feature film can be compressed down to 1GB. That's hours of time for most people so I doubt they will ofer that quality. So who wants to watch a poor quality movie? Someone I'm sure won't care and all Apple needs is 0.1% of the market to sell millions
Apple will have the problem of balancing video quality with download times. I think a DVD quality feature film can be compressed down to 1GB. That's hours of time for most people so I doubt they will ofer that quality. So who wants to watch a poor quality movie? Someone I'm sure won't care and all Apple needs is 0.1% of the market to sell millions
Hastings101
Apr 2, 11:07 PM
Always have to use the word magical
ten-oak-druid
Apr 26, 05:31 PM
People on this board claim "app store" is generic and so the trademark is invalid. Yet the trademark application process proceeded to the point that Apple was approved to begin using it.
If the people claiming "app store" cannot be trademarked for the same reasons they claim "pet store" cannot be trademarked were to be believed, then this is a cut and dry case. Yet if it were as simple as they claim, apple's application process would not have made it this far.
So take their words with a grain of salt.
In the end, Apple may lose the trademark. But considering the fact that placing the word "the" in front of a seemingly generic name appears to make a difference, perhaps apple should apply for "the app store" now.
As for Amazon, I don't think Apple will win this case. The name of Amazon's store is "Amazon Appstore".
If the people claiming "app store" cannot be trademarked for the same reasons they claim "pet store" cannot be trademarked were to be believed, then this is a cut and dry case. Yet if it were as simple as they claim, apple's application process would not have made it this far.
So take their words with a grain of salt.
In the end, Apple may lose the trademark. But considering the fact that placing the word "the" in front of a seemingly generic name appears to make a difference, perhaps apple should apply for "the app store" now.
As for Amazon, I don't think Apple will win this case. The name of Amazon's store is "Amazon Appstore".
adroit
Nov 15, 11:25 AM
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
This is true, but there are still many many ways to optimize the multi-core processor that's not currently being use.
For example, I am waiting for a program to compile right now. Although I have a dual core on my computer, the compiler only compile one file at a time and usually takes about 10 min to do a full compile . If I have an 8 core computer with a multi-threaded compiler then I can cut the total time to jsut over a min + couple of seconds for linking time.
I think the main problem with muti-threading program is that it is difficult to implement, especially for coders who only knows high-level languages. Muti-threading in low-level program such as C is not easy but at least it is straight-forward. But trying to muti-thread high-level language such as VB or C# can get you into a big headace since everything is abstracted from the programmer. To do that, you need to get into unsafe code and call a bunch of DLLs, and it's easy to get memory leaks. Basically it can start to get very complicated, very quickly.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
This is true, but there are still many many ways to optimize the multi-core processor that's not currently being use.
For example, I am waiting for a program to compile right now. Although I have a dual core on my computer, the compiler only compile one file at a time and usually takes about 10 min to do a full compile . If I have an 8 core computer with a multi-threaded compiler then I can cut the total time to jsut over a min + couple of seconds for linking time.
I think the main problem with muti-threading program is that it is difficult to implement, especially for coders who only knows high-level languages. Muti-threading in low-level program such as C is not easy but at least it is straight-forward. But trying to muti-thread high-level language such as VB or C# can get you into a big headace since everything is abstracted from the programmer. To do that, you need to get into unsafe code and call a bunch of DLLs, and it's easy to get memory leaks. Basically it can start to get very complicated, very quickly.
0 comments:
Post a Comment