kresh
Jan 13, 01:59 AM
GreenPeace will go Ape Shite if the MacBookAir is charged through induction. It will not be near as efficient in power transfer as a direct connection would be. (nothing transfers with 100% efficiency)
I can see GreenPeace attacking Apple now because the new notebooks will cause a 15% spike in electricity consumption, dumping 15% more carbon into the air. Death to Apple!
I can see GreenPeace attacking Apple now because the new notebooks will cause a 15% spike in electricity consumption, dumping 15% more carbon into the air. Death to Apple!
blahblah100
Apr 26, 01:15 PM
anyone else getting a little bit fed up of apples lawsuits?
Only if it's Apple being sued. Remember, when Apple sues, they are just protecting their intellectual property. Only when another company sues Apple is it frivolous and annoying and a case of where the plaintiffs are just trying to ride Apple's coattails. :rolleyes:
If you read the forums, it's very clear: lawsuits are only valid if Apple is the plaintiff.
Only if it's Apple being sued. Remember, when Apple sues, they are just protecting their intellectual property. Only when another company sues Apple is it frivolous and annoying and a case of where the plaintiffs are just trying to ride Apple's coattails. :rolleyes:
If you read the forums, it's very clear: lawsuits are only valid if Apple is the plaintiff.
Evangelion
Aug 25, 04:00 AM
I think the 64 bitness isn't really necessary for a Mac mini.
64bitness brings other benefits for x86, besides increased address-space.
64bitness brings other benefits for x86, besides increased address-space.
iMacThere4Iam
Apr 19, 03:27 PM
As much as I want an Air, every time I'm in an Apple Store I drool over the 27" iMac. There's just something about that beautiful aluminum behemoth sitting on a desk that says I'm in the right camp.
Dare we dream of a 30" model?
Dare we dream of a 30" model?
syklee26
Sep 1, 12:33 PM
apparently appleinsider thinks same about 23inch one too.
maybe it is coming afterall. should make WoW even more fun to play.
maybe it is coming afterall. should make WoW even more fun to play.
doo-hik-ee
Jan 3, 09:06 PM
give me an apple clothing line!
%IMG_DESC_7%
%IMG_DESC_8%
%IMG_DESC_9%
%IMG_DESC_10%
%IMG_DESC_11%
%IMG_DESC_12%
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
SciFrog
Nov 9, 12:30 PM
We just had a monster record day, 430k points!
We now average 258k per day, slightly above our current rank.
We now average 258k per day, slightly above our current rank.
macfan881
Sep 9, 04:48 PM
I also pray That the will have family guy and simpsons on The Tv Store Tuesday i mean they have fox and adult swim i dont see why they would hold back for family guy i bet you to that simpsons would be the next dl series on itunes also if they put it up along with faimly guy
arkitect
Mar 22, 01:00 PM
I don't believe any was born gay, that's my opinion. I believe you make the choice in your life, just like you make the choice on what career you want and college you desire to go to. I have friends that were once married (guy/girl) and then divorced because they liked their sex better. So now they are openly gay and happy.
The only choice these friends of yours made was to try and fit in with straight culture.
They were always gay. They chose to be straight… and that never works out.
I have back and forth e-mails with them stating they consider it a choice. One of my friends is a writer for Lesbians and spoke in front of congress on this issue 2 years ago. I was with her and she even stated that it was a choice to become a lesbian and it's now America's choice to accept it for all for choose this path.
Colour me sceptic.
Back and forth with emails confessing they chose to be gay? Oh come on.
FYI, I made a choice about my career… tonight's dinner, my brand of underwear… I did not choose to be gay. No more than you made a choice to be (I assume) straight. Or… did you… which brings me back to your gay/straight switching friends. Perhaps time to do some more emailing? Talk things over with them? No need to be so deep in that dark closet.
The only choice these friends of yours made was to try and fit in with straight culture.
They were always gay. They chose to be straight… and that never works out.
I have back and forth e-mails with them stating they consider it a choice. One of my friends is a writer for Lesbians and spoke in front of congress on this issue 2 years ago. I was with her and she even stated that it was a choice to become a lesbian and it's now America's choice to accept it for all for choose this path.
Colour me sceptic.
Back and forth with emails confessing they chose to be gay? Oh come on.
FYI, I made a choice about my career… tonight's dinner, my brand of underwear… I did not choose to be gay. No more than you made a choice to be (I assume) straight. Or… did you… which brings me back to your gay/straight switching friends. Perhaps time to do some more emailing? Talk things over with them? No need to be so deep in that dark closet.
AidenShaw
Nov 18, 08:50 PM
When Intel multicore processors are used (as in the Mac Pro) which support hardware virtualization, you can run software (such as Parrallels Desktop) that lets your run additional operating systems (such as Windows, Solaris, and Linux) concurrently with OSX at near full native speeds since one or more cores are used for OSX and one is used for each of the virtual operating systems.
The virtualization example is the same as your multiple application example.
Cores are not dedicated to virtual machines - each virtual machine is an application that needs to use CPU power from time to time.
With multi-core, there are more CPUs so that the VM applications can be scheduled at the same time. Just like more standard applications (or application threads) can be scheduled simultaneously.
Assigning processors to specific applications is almost always a bad idea. It is better to let the operating system schedule any thread that needs CPU on any idle CPU in a multi-CPU (multi-core) system.
The virtualization example is the same as your multiple application example.
Cores are not dedicated to virtual machines - each virtual machine is an application that needs to use CPU power from time to time.
With multi-core, there are more CPUs so that the VM applications can be scheduled at the same time. Just like more standard applications (or application threads) can be scheduled simultaneously.
Assigning processors to specific applications is almost always a bad idea. It is better to let the operating system schedule any thread that needs CPU on any idle CPU in a multi-CPU (multi-core) system.
afrowq
Apr 20, 10:15 PM
I think that's one of the reasons why Apple has held off with the iMac upgrade. They wanted the MacBook Pro to be ahead for a few months because it's a "pro" model line.
When I don't see hipsters, students, and soccer moms using Macbook "Pros" at Starbucks, then I'll believe that it's a "Pro" model
When I don't see hipsters, students, and soccer moms using Macbook "Pros" at Starbucks, then I'll believe that it's a "Pro" model
AidenShaw
Aug 26, 11:19 PM
Wow, Aiden, you sound pretty confident about that. Do you know something that the rest of us don't? (It would make sense, however, to have a mid-range single Conroe-based desktop.)
It's not that I know anything - it's just that it's so bloody obvious that nothing in Apple's current lineup is even remotely suitable for a home theater PC....
However, a Conroe in a DVD-player sized case, with 2 or 3 500GB or 750GB drives, a couple of TV tuners (SD and HD), FrontRow on steroids - then you'd have something.
Take a peek at what available in Windows for the Home Theatre space - like: http://www.acedigitalhome.com/limited.htm
Conroes with quad TV tuners, RAID, touch-screen controls....
It's not that I know anything - it's just that it's so bloody obvious that nothing in Apple's current lineup is even remotely suitable for a home theater PC....
However, a Conroe in a DVD-player sized case, with 2 or 3 500GB or 750GB drives, a couple of TV tuners (SD and HD), FrontRow on steroids - then you'd have something.
Take a peek at what available in Windows for the Home Theatre space - like: http://www.acedigitalhome.com/limited.htm
Conroes with quad TV tuners, RAID, touch-screen controls....
NebulaClash
Sep 14, 12:02 PM
I think you are a minority of one on this interpretation. Apple is saying you now won't get the case unless you are exhibiting the problem. Toyota's recall applies to ALL cars in the affected series, and they will repair/replace the questionable part whether you are exhibiting problems or not. Moreover, Toyota's sends a recall notice to all the impacted owners; with the new Apple policy, you have to read the news or contact Apple to learn of the program.
Toyota fixes all vehicles because they all have the potential to have dangerous problems.
Most iPhone owners have no problem whatsoever, and there's no danger at all to anyone.
So Toyota HAS to fix them all. It would be pointless for Apple to fix all iPhones in the field when most of them never have an issue needing a fix. But if you do have a problem, let them know and they will fix it for you for free. That's hardly a burden for such a non-dangerous situation.
We live in this ridiculous era of expectations. Apple comes out with a reasonable solution to a problem that affects a tiny percentage of users, and they get slammed for it. Hypocrisy.
Toyota fixes all vehicles because they all have the potential to have dangerous problems.
Most iPhone owners have no problem whatsoever, and there's no danger at all to anyone.
So Toyota HAS to fix them all. It would be pointless for Apple to fix all iPhones in the field when most of them never have an issue needing a fix. But if you do have a problem, let them know and they will fix it for you for free. That's hardly a burden for such a non-dangerous situation.
We live in this ridiculous era of expectations. Apple comes out with a reasonable solution to a problem that affects a tiny percentage of users, and they get slammed for it. Hypocrisy.
AppleCode
Nov 24, 05:32 PM
http://skincasecover.com/43-84-large/blackberry-curve-8520-8530-silicone-skin-green.jpg
My Fav Colour
My Fav Colour
jakeDude
Nov 15, 02:11 PM
Programmers should make the effort to accommodate upcoming multi-core designs into their software development cycle. Once a new system is released, it should be a minimal effort to test and tweak the software for the new system and quickly release an update, thus making their customers only wait a week or two from when the systems first ship as opposed to several weeks/months .
This is not true at all. Multi-threading often introduces more problems such as race conditions, deadlocks, pipeline starvations, memory leaks, cache coherency problems. Further more, multithreaded apps are harder and take longer to debug. Also, using threads without good reason too is not efficient (context swtiching) and can cause problems (thread priorities) with other apps running. This is because threads can not yield to other threads and block if such an undesirable condition like a deadlock exists.. Like on Windows when one app has a non responsive thread and the whole system hangs.. Or like when Finder sucks and locks everything..
Also, multithreading behaves differently on different platforms with different language environments. Java threading might behave differently than p-threads (C-based) on the same system (OS X).. I am a prfessional developer etc..
This is not true at all. Multi-threading often introduces more problems such as race conditions, deadlocks, pipeline starvations, memory leaks, cache coherency problems. Further more, multithreaded apps are harder and take longer to debug. Also, using threads without good reason too is not efficient (context swtiching) and can cause problems (thread priorities) with other apps running. This is because threads can not yield to other threads and block if such an undesirable condition like a deadlock exists.. Like on Windows when one app has a non responsive thread and the whole system hangs.. Or like when Finder sucks and locks everything..
Also, multithreading behaves differently on different platforms with different language environments. Java threading might behave differently than p-threads (C-based) on the same system (OS X).. I am a prfessional developer etc..
DewGuy1999
Feb 22, 07:39 PM
I wish I could find a Mini DisplayPort to DVI cable, but those don't seem to exist.
MonoPrice.com> CABLES > Video Cables - DisplayPort > Mini DisplayPort to DVI Cables (http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10246&cs_id=1024604)
MonoPrice.com> CABLES > Video Cables - DisplayPort > Mini DisplayPort to DVI Cables (http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10246&cs_id=1024604)
xelavelobos
Jan 1, 07:29 PM
I am very excited about this year, but apple will be smart not to do too much in one show. I mean how many surprises and new products can they release at one time before the public gets overwhelmed or exhausted (i.e. the dinosaur sequence in king kong)? I think they will focus on a few special things, probably not the phone though.
leekohler
Mar 22, 10:47 AM
This shouldn't be available at all,but are you somehow implying that there aren't gay minors?
No- I'm saying this should not be allowed to screw up gay minors. Adults can do what they want to screw themselves up.
No- I'm saying this should not be allowed to screw up gay minors. Adults can do what they want to screw themselves up.
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.
NameUndecided
Apr 2, 04:18 PM
Is anyone else losing their toolbar buttons and address bars in the toolbar when they enter Safari into fullscreen mode? I'm getting just a solid graphite bar at the top of the screen when I go into fullscreen. Tabs aren't showing in fullscreen either. This wasn't happening in DP 1.
I've been using a keyboard shortcut to remove the toolbar altogether when I don't need it, but that doesn't affect the solid graphite bar. Right now I need to exit fullscreen if I need to use the toolbar at all, and either way I still have the hardly-useful block of graphite at the top taking up some of the screen.
I've been using a keyboard shortcut to remove the toolbar altogether when I don't need it, but that doesn't affect the solid graphite bar. Right now I need to exit fullscreen if I need to use the toolbar at all, and either way I still have the hardly-useful block of graphite at the top taking up some of the screen.
gorgeousninja
Apr 20, 09:15 AM
I'll be darned! This is the first post this guy has made in months that hasn't annoyed me! This is a good sign!
+1 (though not convinced it will last);)
+1 (though not convinced it will last);)
AppliedVisual
Nov 17, 12:37 PM
It's not the future... these kind of over-architected solutions never win. I predict CPUs, memory and memory controllers will become more tightly integrated over time, not less. FB-DIMM will be gone is a few years.
FB-DIMMs aren't going to disappear anytime soon -- not in the next few years anyway. There currently is nothing better or more reliable for installing 16GB or more in a system without dividing up RAM into multiple, independent banks and controllers, often on a per-CPU base (as is done on current NUMA, AMD Opteron and other offerings from Sun, IBM, etc..).
Probably won't see FB-DIMM style RAM on systems like the iMac anytime soon, no need for it. But for now, it's what makes the most sense for Mac Pro and Xserve.
IMO, what Apple really needs is a system between the Mac Pro and iMac. A smaller tower or cube style system with a single Kentsfield or Clovertown CPU with 2 or 3 PCI-E slots, two HDD bays, optical bay and using cheaper, more conventional RAM - like up to 8GB DDR2. Apple is ignoring an entire segment of the market and it seems like they're trying to use the small difference in price between a maxed-out 24" iMac and a relatively low-end Mac Pro as justification for nothing in the middle.
FB-DIMMs aren't going to disappear anytime soon -- not in the next few years anyway. There currently is nothing better or more reliable for installing 16GB or more in a system without dividing up RAM into multiple, independent banks and controllers, often on a per-CPU base (as is done on current NUMA, AMD Opteron and other offerings from Sun, IBM, etc..).
Probably won't see FB-DIMM style RAM on systems like the iMac anytime soon, no need for it. But for now, it's what makes the most sense for Mac Pro and Xserve.
IMO, what Apple really needs is a system between the Mac Pro and iMac. A smaller tower or cube style system with a single Kentsfield or Clovertown CPU with 2 or 3 PCI-E slots, two HDD bays, optical bay and using cheaper, more conventional RAM - like up to 8GB DDR2. Apple is ignoring an entire segment of the market and it seems like they're trying to use the small difference in price between a maxed-out 24" iMac and a relatively low-end Mac Pro as justification for nothing in the middle.
jxyama
Apr 6, 11:22 AM
actually, nevermind. i don't care anymore. you are clearly not reading what i've been posting anyway.
portishead
Apr 21, 12:34 PM
At least he's got a birth certificate. You and Full of Win must be related. Or married. Or both.