darrens
Aug 5, 03:04 AM
First, Apple's apps were easier to port because they were already XCode. So it was fairly easy for Apple to just recompile with the new compiler.
Are you sure that's true for all of them? They haven't owned Logic very long, and some of the others started life outside of Apple. I'm sure they had a few issues there.
Second, Adobe was using a lot of CodeWarrior code and it would be far more difficult to convert. Also having X86 code compiled using MS VStudio doesn't help Adobe to be ahead in generating X86 code under XCode because they run under a completely different GUI and access different libraries.
They have the MacOS X GUI code - that doesn't change for Intel - the OS is the same. The core logic endianness doesn't depend on the compiler - the code would be cross-platform and compile on GCC and Visual Studio anyway. Sure they have to deal with a few Codewarrior issues - but they have to do that for the new version anyway. It's not like they'd have to do it twice.
Third, even Apple released the UB code with a new updated version of their pro apps. Adobe's CS3 was not due for a year and a half.
True - but not all Apple's pro apps had a significant level of new features - they were just an interim release.
Fourth, Adobe announced their plans early on so that everyone would know what to expect.
Yes - don't expect us to be as pro-active as we've been in the past. I can remember when Apple went PPC - Adobe had an accelerator out for Photoshop close to the release date of the PPC Macs, and the fully PPC version followed shortly after.
My point about intuit is that Apple announced the transition before Intuit even began work on Quicken 2007. Quicken hardly relies on any graphics code, is mostly text, and number based. Yet they chose to ignore converting to UB code even though now would be perfect timing to do so. In addition they have not announced any plans to create UB's in the future.
This is also the sort of app that gets the least advantage from conversion. It's still a fair amount of work to change development environments when there's no real advantage to it. Especially when Intuit is really given token support to the Mac anyway.
Sure quicken will run with Rosetta, but is that what we want from developers. Forget about modernizing their code because they can make it run in an artificial emulated environment.
With that logic Intuit should have stuck with OS9 versions of quicken as it could always be run fine in classic.
It's hardly the same - you have to boot a second copy of MacOS to run a classic app (which is really slow) and it doesn't integrate seamlessly. You can hardly tell an app is running in Rosetta - there's no visual difference.
Are you sure that's true for all of them? They haven't owned Logic very long, and some of the others started life outside of Apple. I'm sure they had a few issues there.
Second, Adobe was using a lot of CodeWarrior code and it would be far more difficult to convert. Also having X86 code compiled using MS VStudio doesn't help Adobe to be ahead in generating X86 code under XCode because they run under a completely different GUI and access different libraries.
They have the MacOS X GUI code - that doesn't change for Intel - the OS is the same. The core logic endianness doesn't depend on the compiler - the code would be cross-platform and compile on GCC and Visual Studio anyway. Sure they have to deal with a few Codewarrior issues - but they have to do that for the new version anyway. It's not like they'd have to do it twice.
Third, even Apple released the UB code with a new updated version of their pro apps. Adobe's CS3 was not due for a year and a half.
True - but not all Apple's pro apps had a significant level of new features - they were just an interim release.
Fourth, Adobe announced their plans early on so that everyone would know what to expect.
Yes - don't expect us to be as pro-active as we've been in the past. I can remember when Apple went PPC - Adobe had an accelerator out for Photoshop close to the release date of the PPC Macs, and the fully PPC version followed shortly after.
My point about intuit is that Apple announced the transition before Intuit even began work on Quicken 2007. Quicken hardly relies on any graphics code, is mostly text, and number based. Yet they chose to ignore converting to UB code even though now would be perfect timing to do so. In addition they have not announced any plans to create UB's in the future.
This is also the sort of app that gets the least advantage from conversion. It's still a fair amount of work to change development environments when there's no real advantage to it. Especially when Intuit is really given token support to the Mac anyway.
Sure quicken will run with Rosetta, but is that what we want from developers. Forget about modernizing their code because they can make it run in an artificial emulated environment.
With that logic Intuit should have stuck with OS9 versions of quicken as it could always be run fine in classic.
It's hardly the same - you have to boot a second copy of MacOS to run a classic app (which is really slow) and it doesn't integrate seamlessly. You can hardly tell an app is running in Rosetta - there's no visual difference.
sam10685
Jul 30, 01:31 AM
I think it's real. No signs of photoshopping and the pic was taken in an elevator :D
massive sign's of photoshopping. the light on the phone doesn't match.
massive sign's of photoshopping. the light on the phone doesn't match.
ECUpirate44
Apr 9, 07:38 PM
Because there is no operand between the 2 and the (9+3).
And I agree, this is the most nonsensical thread in some time.
God bless diversions. :D
lol but still, order of operations tells you that the parentheses is done first. Wanna bet how many pages this gets up to until it dies? lol
And I agree, this is the most nonsensical thread in some time.
God bless diversions. :D
lol but still, order of operations tells you that the parentheses is done first. Wanna bet how many pages this gets up to until it dies? lol
iStudentUK
Apr 10, 11:21 AM
In my opinion-
48/2(9+3) = 288
48/(2(9+3)) = 2
To make it clear you could write it with ( ... )^-1 like a real man! :D
48/2(9+3) = 288
48/(2(9+3)) = 2
To make it clear you could write it with ( ... )^-1 like a real man! :D
Don't panic
May 5, 11:49 AM
No reason to split. There is only 1 door.
i agree, and it's not like there are many alternatves so here we go, so I won't waste more time.
R3t2: we move on to the next room
i agree, and it's not like there are many alternatves so here we go, so I won't waste more time.
R3t2: we move on to the next room
swingerofbirch
Jul 30, 02:24 AM
Maybe Apple can bring to the US the model where you pay to call not to receive!
HOORAY.
HOORAY.
YS2003
Nov 26, 06:09 PM
I would worry too much about the swivel joint and the connections and cables within breaking, however I do use a touch-screen display ToughBook at work
and I can certainly see where that option might be popular
IF the protective shield to the touch screen could be easily replaced.
They get scratched bad after using them for a while.
I think the swivel mechanism is build to last. I have Fujitsu T4020 and it has the solid swivel mechanism. Passive and Active Screen have their pros and cons. Passive one is like the ones you find on Palm and Pocket PC. Active one requires the special digitizer which is made for active screen. For better sensitivity, the active digitizer unit is better. It's like Wacom's Intuos (pro grade) and Graphire (consumer grade which has less "sensitivity" on your input).
With tablet PC, you need put on screen protector; no question about it. I use Vikuiti screen protector to protect the active digitizer screen. It is un-wise to use Tablet PC without screen protector. If you scratch the screen without using the screen protector, the blame is only on the user of that tablet PC.
and I can certainly see where that option might be popular
IF the protective shield to the touch screen could be easily replaced.
They get scratched bad after using them for a while.
I think the swivel mechanism is build to last. I have Fujitsu T4020 and it has the solid swivel mechanism. Passive and Active Screen have their pros and cons. Passive one is like the ones you find on Palm and Pocket PC. Active one requires the special digitizer which is made for active screen. For better sensitivity, the active digitizer unit is better. It's like Wacom's Intuos (pro grade) and Graphire (consumer grade which has less "sensitivity" on your input).
With tablet PC, you need put on screen protector; no question about it. I use Vikuiti screen protector to protect the active digitizer screen. It is un-wise to use Tablet PC without screen protector. If you scratch the screen without using the screen protector, the blame is only on the user of that tablet PC.
Don't panic
May 5, 10:53 AM
The system is solid and consistent between the villain and the heroes. I think you all are over thinking it. Ravenvii said early on in his explanation that it might be easier to think of the villains turns as points to avoid confusion. Basically during my round I earn 2 points to spend any way I choose. Some actions require one turn/point to accomplish. For example:
- move to a new room
- self heal
Thus, if during my turn I choose to move or heal then in essence I've used one of the 2 points/turns to accomplish this task meaning for the rest of the round I only have 1 point/turn left. Setting traps or sending out my minions cost various points and thus I must save up points for some things. If I choose to save points then I'm essentially forfeiting action in that turn or for the entire round by choosing to carry over the point or points to my next round.
Heroes actions work the same way they just aren't broken down into points for easier understanding. You could choose to think of it as getting 2 points at the beginning of your rounds as well and in turn it would cost you 1 point to do any of the following:
- explore a room
- move to a new room
Thus, with your entire round you can take two actions or turns, each costing one point. The only difference is heroes can't save up points like the villain can.
So, you see, the system is consistent on both sides.
i see the point, and i am fine with it if that's what the GMs decided.
i am just saying that it is not what was said before (or how i understood it), where the deployment of a trap/minion was portrayed as costing point previoulsy generated.
for example, post #10
For example: let's say a dragon costs 10 turns (or points). To be able to place the dragon on the map, the villain must forgo 10 turns. The fastest way to get the dragon is to skip both his turns for 5 rounds.
with your interpretation, you'd forgo 9 turns, because on the 10th the dragon is deployed, instead of waiting 5 rounds and deploy the dragon in the next turn.
i just want to make sure what the rules are, because it makes a significant difference in terms of keeping track of what might or might not be out there.
for example, by my count, in one round you could deploy one goblin (one turn to get a point, one to deploy), by yours, you deploy two (point and deploy each turn).
also, can you heal and deploy trap/monsters at the same turn, from the Lair?
can you accrue points while moving/healing?
it's the beginning of brand new game, so it's normal the rules are seen in different ways and need some fine tuning in how they are worded.
- move to a new room
- self heal
Thus, if during my turn I choose to move or heal then in essence I've used one of the 2 points/turns to accomplish this task meaning for the rest of the round I only have 1 point/turn left. Setting traps or sending out my minions cost various points and thus I must save up points for some things. If I choose to save points then I'm essentially forfeiting action in that turn or for the entire round by choosing to carry over the point or points to my next round.
Heroes actions work the same way they just aren't broken down into points for easier understanding. You could choose to think of it as getting 2 points at the beginning of your rounds as well and in turn it would cost you 1 point to do any of the following:
- explore a room
- move to a new room
Thus, with your entire round you can take two actions or turns, each costing one point. The only difference is heroes can't save up points like the villain can.
So, you see, the system is consistent on both sides.
i see the point, and i am fine with it if that's what the GMs decided.
i am just saying that it is not what was said before (or how i understood it), where the deployment of a trap/minion was portrayed as costing point previoulsy generated.
for example, post #10
For example: let's say a dragon costs 10 turns (or points). To be able to place the dragon on the map, the villain must forgo 10 turns. The fastest way to get the dragon is to skip both his turns for 5 rounds.
with your interpretation, you'd forgo 9 turns, because on the 10th the dragon is deployed, instead of waiting 5 rounds and deploy the dragon in the next turn.
i just want to make sure what the rules are, because it makes a significant difference in terms of keeping track of what might or might not be out there.
for example, by my count, in one round you could deploy one goblin (one turn to get a point, one to deploy), by yours, you deploy two (point and deploy each turn).
also, can you heal and deploy trap/monsters at the same turn, from the Lair?
can you accrue points while moving/healing?
it's the beginning of brand new game, so it's normal the rules are seen in different ways and need some fine tuning in how they are worded.
eb6
Sep 11, 08:39 AM
Why is it so hard to believe Apple will add movies to iTunes? They already added short films and TV shows.
iApples
Apr 10, 02:42 AM
Again, I'd like to warn people: this is not always true. Even if you enter it exactly as above, your calculator will not always give you 288. Some will give you two. Some settings may give you two. Don't trust a calculator blindly.
Reset your settings to default and you'll get 288. I've tried it on 7 calculators that I've found around the house. 6 of them equalled to 288 and the 7th one equalled to 2. But that calculator did not have the numbers entered exactly as in the OP. Or you can go try it on Google. Google doesn't lie.
Looks like your sarcasm is on par with you math. When you have to explain sarcasm, it's not really sarcastic.
It must be on par with your math skills then. Horrible.
Reset your settings to default and you'll get 288. I've tried it on 7 calculators that I've found around the house. 6 of them equalled to 288 and the 7th one equalled to 2. But that calculator did not have the numbers entered exactly as in the OP. Or you can go try it on Google. Google doesn't lie.
Looks like your sarcasm is on par with you math. When you have to explain sarcasm, it's not really sarcastic.
It must be on par with your math skills then. Horrible.
tbrinkma
Apr 25, 10:43 AM
Unfortunately it�s not THAT easy. First, to delete the file you need to apply a jailbreak to your device. If you delete it on your Mac, pretty sure it will be recreated on your next device sync. Second, I�m sure the consolidated.db is not used by Apple themselves, BUT I guess it�s used by their advertising partners. I bet certain Apps will be able to access it to show localized iAds to the user. And to top it all off, Apple hasn�t asked for my permission to collect this data.
Ok, here's the information that's actually known about the consolidated.db file:
1) It records the locations of nearby wi-fi access points and cell towers.
2) When location services were originally added to the iPhone, the file had a different name and was stored in a different location. (It was moved as part of the multi-tasking updates.)
3) The purpose of the file has been explicitly spelled out by Apple *from the beginning*. It is used *by* location services to calculate your current position in order to be able to display your position faster than would be possible solely using GPS. (It's part of the Assisted GPS process.)
4) There is absolutely no evidence that the file's contents are ever transmitted to anyone. It exists on the iPhone, and in the backup(s) of said iPhone.
Ok, here's the information that's actually known about the consolidated.db file:
1) It records the locations of nearby wi-fi access points and cell towers.
2) When location services were originally added to the iPhone, the file had a different name and was stored in a different location. (It was moved as part of the multi-tasking updates.)
3) The purpose of the file has been explicitly spelled out by Apple *from the beginning*. It is used *by* location services to calculate your current position in order to be able to display your position faster than would be possible solely using GPS. (It's part of the Assisted GPS process.)
4) There is absolutely no evidence that the file's contents are ever transmitted to anyone. It exists on the iPhone, and in the backup(s) of said iPhone.
SandynJosh
Apr 26, 03:21 PM
But if Apple had gotten on board with Verizon a year earlier, those numbers would probably be reversed.
That extra year that Apple sat on their ass with AT&T was the crucial year that allowed android to gain traction and mindshare.
Neither your or I know what contract details with AT&T prevented Apple from opening up Verizon earlier than they did, so claiming Apple "sat on their ass" is just your silly opinion.
Once the 'greatly anticipated' Verizon launch finally did come, it was met with a large chorus of "who cares?" from the crowd - the crowd that had gotten their droid phone 6 months earlier.
Again you make a wild-assed leap of logic. I, like many Verizon users, met the news that the iPhone was available on my favorite carrier with, "Oh dam, I'm locked into a two-year contract with a ****** Android Incredible."
Your basic point that Apple needed to open up the iPhone to more U.S. carriers to avoid market share loss is correct and generally regarded as such by most analysts. However, from the launch of the first iPhone, Apple has struggled to meet the accelerating demand for its products, so adding more U.S. carriers may have not been as smart as us outside the company might second-guess.
That extra year that Apple sat on their ass with AT&T was the crucial year that allowed android to gain traction and mindshare.
Neither your or I know what contract details with AT&T prevented Apple from opening up Verizon earlier than they did, so claiming Apple "sat on their ass" is just your silly opinion.
Once the 'greatly anticipated' Verizon launch finally did come, it was met with a large chorus of "who cares?" from the crowd - the crowd that had gotten their droid phone 6 months earlier.
Again you make a wild-assed leap of logic. I, like many Verizon users, met the news that the iPhone was available on my favorite carrier with, "Oh dam, I'm locked into a two-year contract with a ****** Android Incredible."
Your basic point that Apple needed to open up the iPhone to more U.S. carriers to avoid market share loss is correct and generally regarded as such by most analysts. However, from the launch of the first iPhone, Apple has struggled to meet the accelerating demand for its products, so adding more U.S. carriers may have not been as smart as us outside the company might second-guess.
DakotaGuy
Aug 7, 06:00 PM
About the cube pro or headless iMac
Yes, but quiet. Without fans, if possible.
I'm pretty much sure anything at this performance level will need fans. We are not dealing with a G3 processor anymore.
Anyhow I agree with the people that want a tower in between the iMac and these new Mac Pros. In fact, I would say these new models are probably complete overkill for 80% of Mac users. The 20% that really need this kind of power know who they are. The rest only need it for bragging rights.
I like the iMac it is perfect in my eyes, but many people like to have something that is expandable. Something they can get inside of and change things.
I don't even know if Apple needs a whole new case for that. Just a single dual core processor model would be fine. Either a single Xeon or a single Core 2 Duo. Something priced around $1,500 (+ or - a few dollars) fairly well equipped.
Like I said before these things are beasts almost to the point of overkill except for professionals. Not everyone wants an all-in-one and the Mac Mini is not comparable to a tower in any way. So I think these people's complants are justified.
Yes, but quiet. Without fans, if possible.
I'm pretty much sure anything at this performance level will need fans. We are not dealing with a G3 processor anymore.
Anyhow I agree with the people that want a tower in between the iMac and these new Mac Pros. In fact, I would say these new models are probably complete overkill for 80% of Mac users. The 20% that really need this kind of power know who they are. The rest only need it for bragging rights.
I like the iMac it is perfect in my eyes, but many people like to have something that is expandable. Something they can get inside of and change things.
I don't even know if Apple needs a whole new case for that. Just a single dual core processor model would be fine. Either a single Xeon or a single Core 2 Duo. Something priced around $1,500 (+ or - a few dollars) fairly well equipped.
Like I said before these things are beasts almost to the point of overkill except for professionals. Not everyone wants an all-in-one and the Mac Mini is not comparable to a tower in any way. So I think these people's complants are justified.
gglockner
May 6, 12:45 AM
I cannot believe that Apple would replace Intel with ARM. It would be a setback to the Mac: virtually everything would become incompatible once again. Remember how long it took the larger developers to create Universal versions of applications: Microsoft Office and Adobe CS.
The previous two transitions (680x0 -> PPC and PPC -> x86) weren't so painful if for no other reason than the install base was far smaller.
And putting ARM as a secondary processor so that Macs can run iOS apps? There's absolutely no need - x86 Macs can already run iOS apps well inside the iPhone emulator that comes with Xcode. The x86 processors are more than capable of emulating an ARM processor.
The previous two transitions (680x0 -> PPC and PPC -> x86) weren't so painful if for no other reason than the install base was far smaller.
And putting ARM as a secondary processor so that Macs can run iOS apps? There's absolutely no need - x86 Macs can already run iOS apps well inside the iPhone emulator that comes with Xcode. The x86 processors are more than capable of emulating an ARM processor.
aswitcher
Aug 7, 02:26 PM
Excellent. Now it's time to wait for the sub-$2000 "Pro" desktop announcement. There's a suspicious gap in their lineup. Mac Pro Cube (http://macprocube.com), perhaps?
Agreed.I was heartened to see no Core 2 duo low end for this very reason.
Agreed.I was heartened to see no Core 2 duo low end for this very reason.
nanofrog
Apr 27, 10:33 PM
The heat alone would melt that case in a couple months:)
Nah... The chip would go way before the aluminum melts (~108C or so max for any semiconductor to die <quick/instant death>, and aluminum melts at 660C :eek). :D :p
Nah... The chip would go way before the aluminum melts (~108C or so max for any semiconductor to die <quick/instant death>, and aluminum melts at 660C :eek). :D :p
codyc815
Apr 26, 02:47 PM
Good! I don't like Apple being highest in these kind of things. The number one retailer in the country is Walmart, doesn't make it good. Audi and Mercedes aren't the most used cars, but they're the nicest.
oscillatewildly
Apr 10, 06:04 PM
I get 61,835, but I'm beginning to think someone has mucked around with the keys on my calculator.
Cheers,
OW
Cheers,
OW
iGary
Sep 11, 07:03 AM
That's "head off", not "hedge off". You of all people should remember that...:)
I write crap about boats - I'm a fracking pirate not an English major. :)
I write crap about boats - I'm a fracking pirate not an English major. :)
MacRumors
May 6, 12:08 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/06/apple-to-move-from-intel-to-arm-processors-in-future-laptops/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/06/010230-arm.jpg
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/06/010230-arm.jpg
McGiord
Apr 9, 07:11 PM
Official Google answer.
280546
Is this MacRumors or GoogleRumors?
280546
Is this MacRumors or GoogleRumors?
iHeartapple2
Nov 2, 08:00 PM
I have had my MacBook over 2 years now and decided to do a full scan tonight using iAntiVirus just to see what it would find. The results are 0 , nothing, and nada.
jonnysods
Apr 24, 03:32 PM
Can't imagine the price of those panels. Maybe these will be for the new macbook airs. Just imagine!
roadbloc
Mar 30, 05:46 PM
Excellent.