shawnce
Aug 26, 07:10 PM
From the looks of it PPC based Mac's have MUCH fewer issues. Did you notice that the site was started on June 7th 2006? What do you think it will be skewed towards?
(anyway talk about a site designed for farming ad link related revenue)
(anyway talk about a site designed for farming ad link related revenue)
Sky Blue
Mar 26, 11:02 AM
what $500 product?
OS X Server
OS X Server
macman2790
Sep 19, 07:36 AM
apple store isn't down yet. I don't expect it today like a lot of people do
Machead III
Sep 19, 07:14 AM
kan I hav Mormon MacBook plz?!
MacRumorUser
Nov 27, 04:13 PM
Gran Turismo: The REAL driving simulator ....as long as you've grinded long enough. :rolleyes:
Exactly. It's always been a contradictory game for me. The claim of real against the synthetic just has never jelled for me.
I'd rather a game like burnout, heck even Mario Kart not because it's easier or arcade, but because it doesn't have any pretentious about being what it is.
I'd love to love GT series, just find it impossible to do and I've given ALL of them a try including the even more pretentious PROLOGUE versions.
Exactly. It's always been a contradictory game for me. The claim of real against the synthetic just has never jelled for me.
I'd rather a game like burnout, heck even Mario Kart not because it's easier or arcade, but because it doesn't have any pretentious about being what it is.
I'd love to love GT series, just find it impossible to do and I've given ALL of them a try including the even more pretentious PROLOGUE versions.
ThunderSkunk
Mar 23, 12:38 AM
can you say "last ditch effort"
Kaching!!!
BOOM!
Goodbye.
Nobody wants to f around with all your mess, bleckburry.
Kaching!!!
BOOM!
Goodbye.
Nobody wants to f around with all your mess, bleckburry.
inkswamp
Jul 27, 02:22 PM
but is still more productive because it handles more calculations per clock cycle
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
tortoise
Aug 7, 09:26 PM
Well I wouldn't say "Nothing" as obviously it required a lot of programmer time to move the OS to Intel, create the new XCode compiler, create & debug rosetta, re-write all of the iLife, and Pro-Apps offered by Apple, etc. etc.
This should be pretty trivial for the most part, mostly just a rebuild of the code base plus a rewrite of some tiny core bits that will be in assembly code (like locking primitives) and a few drivers. The normal applications should require approximately no porting effort at all.
I would point out that the Intel compiler for OSX is much better than the PPC compiler for the same. I found a couple extremely irritating compiler bugs under XCode PPC, while I have never even seen a bug in contemporaneous versions of GCC for Intel. This by itself is worth something. Current versions of GCC for x86 and AMD64 are on par with the best commercial compilers. GCC for PPC was a usable but inferior pile of dog poo that gave me many problems.
This should be pretty trivial for the most part, mostly just a rebuild of the code base plus a rewrite of some tiny core bits that will be in assembly code (like locking primitives) and a few drivers. The normal applications should require approximately no porting effort at all.
I would point out that the Intel compiler for OSX is much better than the PPC compiler for the same. I found a couple extremely irritating compiler bugs under XCode PPC, while I have never even seen a bug in contemporaneous versions of GCC for Intel. This by itself is worth something. Current versions of GCC for x86 and AMD64 are on par with the best commercial compilers. GCC for PPC was a usable but inferior pile of dog poo that gave me many problems.
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 6, 06:39 PM
I got an 03 Lotus Elise :rolleyes:
Its a nice car, i just have no use for it. Idk if there are Lotus-only races later on so i didnt sell it yet.
I noticed in my garage that theres an option for sharing cars online. I havent read the GT5 manual so i have no idea what it does, but i assume it would allow my PSN friends to drive my cars if i'm not using them. I shared my Citroen, if someone is logged on later check the Online tab of your garage and see if its there. Just dont put too many miles on it ;)
Its a nice car, i just have no use for it. Idk if there are Lotus-only races later on so i didnt sell it yet.
I noticed in my garage that theres an option for sharing cars online. I havent read the GT5 manual so i have no idea what it does, but i assume it would allow my PSN friends to drive my cars if i'm not using them. I shared my Citroen, if someone is logged on later check the Online tab of your garage and see if its there. Just dont put too many miles on it ;)
dethmaShine
Apr 20, 12:29 PM
I'd say even the icon grid claim is reaching. The pictures shown all show the Android application drawer. The actual home screen on Galaxy S devices, what shows up after unlocking, is not the icon grid with a dock. You have to dig into the phone to get to the grid of icons, which frankly again has been shown to be a pretty standard phone UI. Older Palm/Sony models had the "icon grid" UIs in their phones also. :
http://www.mobiledia.com/reviews/sonyericsson/t610/images/front.jpg
http://www.mobileincanada.com/images/unlock/att-palm-treo-600.jpg
Let's face it, the "icon grid" has been a UI for quite a while now :
http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/p/progman.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/jzzc53.png
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/system/managers/filemanager/cde15solaris9.png
And all of them had a dock too? And the page change notifier and similar styled icons?
People fail to understand that Apple isn't suing for grid layout. They are suing for the entire phone which looks just like an iPhone. Simple.
http://www.mobiledia.com/reviews/sonyericsson/t610/images/front.jpg
http://www.mobileincanada.com/images/unlock/att-palm-treo-600.jpg
Let's face it, the "icon grid" has been a UI for quite a while now :
http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/p/progman.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/jzzc53.png
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/system/managers/filemanager/cde15solaris9.png
And all of them had a dock too? And the page change notifier and similar styled icons?
People fail to understand that Apple isn't suing for grid layout. They are suing for the entire phone which looks just like an iPhone. Simple.
DeathChill
Aug 5, 05:41 PM
Kevin Rose (?) usually reveals all the proper stuff a day or so before, no? Wonder if he'll have it this time~
sjo
Aug 11, 04:03 PM
That may be, but I highly doubt every infant, elderly folks, and the poverty stricken all have cell phones. If that's the case, then I'd have to say that there are a lot of people who's financial priorities are kinda messed.
No, not really. You see, mobile phone is cheaper to use than landline in many countries, especially for mobile to mobile calls. And when everyone else has a mobile phone, if you want to be connected you're better off buying a mobile.
No, not really. You see, mobile phone is cheaper to use than landline in many countries, especially for mobile to mobile calls. And when everyone else has a mobile phone, if you want to be connected you're better off buying a mobile.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 24, 01:07 PM
Oh. So when a person criticizes Obama for keeping us in Afghanistan, Iraq, and/or Libya, just level an accusation of racism.
Got it.
The vast majority of conservatives are WASP-ish, and almost all of the people who question Obama's religion/nationality are self-described conservatives. Furthermore, conservatives as a group refuse to admit that this is the case. Got that?
Got it.
The vast majority of conservatives are WASP-ish, and almost all of the people who question Obama's religion/nationality are self-described conservatives. Furthermore, conservatives as a group refuse to admit that this is the case. Got that?
prady16
Sep 13, 07:11 AM
thats a killer system!
Kinda like supercomputers for small businesses!
Kinda like supercomputers for small businesses!
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
aly
Aug 27, 01:38 PM
Just a few hours left, let's hope we see new MacBook Pros tomorrow, I think we'll see the new iMacs with Merom in Paris, because it's a very good announcement for consumers, and get the Pro MB's tomorrow.
As in Paris Expo? Cause I do believe that apple aren't going to be making a keynote speech. And won't make any annoucements at all or am I still believing in old news proved wrong?
As in Paris Expo? Cause I do believe that apple aren't going to be making a keynote speech. And won't make any annoucements at all or am I still believing in old news proved wrong?
zacman
Apr 19, 02:34 PM
Sigh. The iPhone is still gaining market share. Not losing market share.
You're wrong. Apple is losing marketshare for over 2 years now. Just because they are selling MORE iPhones doesn't mean they are gaining marketshare. The market grows much faster than the iPhone sales. Have a look at Nokia: In Q4/10 Nokia sold almost 7 million more smartphones but they lost about 10% marketshare. In Q1/11 Apple lost about 2% marketshare despite the fact that they sold about 2.5 million more iPhones. Just read the latest GfK numbers (needs registered account), it's all in there. NDP numbers for Q1/11 will be released next week if you trust them more.
You're wrong. Apple is losing marketshare for over 2 years now. Just because they are selling MORE iPhones doesn't mean they are gaining marketshare. The market grows much faster than the iPhone sales. Have a look at Nokia: In Q4/10 Nokia sold almost 7 million more smartphones but they lost about 10% marketshare. In Q1/11 Apple lost about 2% marketshare despite the fact that they sold about 2.5 million more iPhones. Just read the latest GfK numbers (needs registered account), it's all in there. NDP numbers for Q1/11 will be released next week if you trust them more.
Georgie
Aug 26, 02:55 PM
Dude. You bought Rev. A machines. I've bought -- EIGHTEEN Macs over the past two years and -- nope NO problems. Granted, they are all PowerPc Macs. Just bought the final Rev. PowerPC 12" Powerbook G4 last week. I'm pleased as punch.
Sorry about your luck but you bought Rev. A machines. The only Rev A machine I ever bought from Apple was the Titanium (tibook) 400mhz G4 Powerbook in August of 2001. Three years later, almost to the day the warranty ended, Apple replaced almost the whole machine under Applecare. That was about my only trouble with Apple, and the problem with the machine was that I was really scared and all thumbs when it came to putting in a stick of memory -- broke the holders and they sent a whole new logic board. That machine is still going strong, with a DayStar CPU upgrade, in a friend's office, and it's got years left in her.
Three of my friends still are on 1998 and 1999 iMacs, going strong with new harddrives only. Two of my other friends are on 2001 and 2000 year iMacs -- one with the same hard drive. Two friends are on 2001/2000 iBooks, going strong. My sister and two other friends are on year 2002 iMacs. All kicking butt. Personally, I prefer my year 2002 667mhz VGA Titanium Powerbook (on it right now) to my other machines and will be upgrading the CPU to 1.2ghz in a few months at Daystar. All to say that Apple makes kickbutt machines. Sorry about your luck. Oh, and again, forgot to mention that since i've been on Apple since 1989, I never had a virus. I bought NOrton Anti Virus out of ignorance once inthe 90's and once in but promptly took it off the puters, unnecessary.
If I were you, I'd have started off with the top of the line G5 2.1ghz 20" iMac (with iSight) and a 14" 1.42ghz iBook. You understand, these are the top of the line of the great PowerPC line of Apple products. It's like buying a 1989 560SL Mercedes (last year) or a 1968 Mustang convertible. I'd ask Apple for a trade 'em in for your rev a machines at least until Rev C Mactels.
Ohhh, Rev A!
I guess I wasn't watching carefully or listening intently when they explained that part in the commercials. Did anyone else hear Mac-dude explain that I would be buying a "Rev A" product and should expect it to fail within three months? Maybe that's what he was saying in Japanese with Camera-chick.
This "Rev A" excuse doesn't hold water. See, had I known that I might not have bought a Mac at all. And if it's true I should expect my $2000 to buy a broken toaster then I also expect Apple to replace it, not make up excuses. As far as that goes, they should pay me to QC their products.
Sorry about your luck but you bought Rev. A machines. The only Rev A machine I ever bought from Apple was the Titanium (tibook) 400mhz G4 Powerbook in August of 2001. Three years later, almost to the day the warranty ended, Apple replaced almost the whole machine under Applecare. That was about my only trouble with Apple, and the problem with the machine was that I was really scared and all thumbs when it came to putting in a stick of memory -- broke the holders and they sent a whole new logic board. That machine is still going strong, with a DayStar CPU upgrade, in a friend's office, and it's got years left in her.
Three of my friends still are on 1998 and 1999 iMacs, going strong with new harddrives only. Two of my other friends are on 2001 and 2000 year iMacs -- one with the same hard drive. Two friends are on 2001/2000 iBooks, going strong. My sister and two other friends are on year 2002 iMacs. All kicking butt. Personally, I prefer my year 2002 667mhz VGA Titanium Powerbook (on it right now) to my other machines and will be upgrading the CPU to 1.2ghz in a few months at Daystar. All to say that Apple makes kickbutt machines. Sorry about your luck. Oh, and again, forgot to mention that since i've been on Apple since 1989, I never had a virus. I bought NOrton Anti Virus out of ignorance once inthe 90's and once in but promptly took it off the puters, unnecessary.
If I were you, I'd have started off with the top of the line G5 2.1ghz 20" iMac (with iSight) and a 14" 1.42ghz iBook. You understand, these are the top of the line of the great PowerPC line of Apple products. It's like buying a 1989 560SL Mercedes (last year) or a 1968 Mustang convertible. I'd ask Apple for a trade 'em in for your rev a machines at least until Rev C Mactels.
Ohhh, Rev A!
I guess I wasn't watching carefully or listening intently when they explained that part in the commercials. Did anyone else hear Mac-dude explain that I would be buying a "Rev A" product and should expect it to fail within three months? Maybe that's what he was saying in Japanese with Camera-chick.
This "Rev A" excuse doesn't hold water. See, had I known that I might not have bought a Mac at all. And if it's true I should expect my $2000 to buy a broken toaster then I also expect Apple to replace it, not make up excuses. As far as that goes, they should pay me to QC their products.
madmax_2069
Nov 12, 05:46 PM
I'll pass on the game altogether.
What it does, Gran Turismo does to perfection....I'm just really not into what it does.
I'm more of an arcade racing guy, so I'll stick with Burnout Paradise until it gets a worthy sequel!
if you really look at it, NFS hot pursuit is the game your looking for.
i like sim and arcade racing games, but if you are a hardcore sim racing nut neither forza 3 or gt5 are real racing sims. so far only computers have real racing sims. not saying that gt5 or forza 3 aren't trying to be, its just they are not considered to be a real racing sim to hardcore sim nuts.
GT5 might be the game that makes me buy a PS3.
What it does, Gran Turismo does to perfection....I'm just really not into what it does.
I'm more of an arcade racing guy, so I'll stick with Burnout Paradise until it gets a worthy sequel!
if you really look at it, NFS hot pursuit is the game your looking for.
i like sim and arcade racing games, but if you are a hardcore sim racing nut neither forza 3 or gt5 are real racing sims. so far only computers have real racing sims. not saying that gt5 or forza 3 aren't trying to be, its just they are not considered to be a real racing sim to hardcore sim nuts.
GT5 might be the game that makes me buy a PS3.
Mr. Retrofire
Apr 6, 07:07 AM
I doubt Apple will ship a new version of FCP before they ship lion, there are simply no real video editor APIs in Snow Leopard that are capable of 64 bit, QT Kit is a joke.
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
The functions inside FCP do not need the OS support. Apple can install private frameworks, and they do it already, for their own applications. So i think they will support SL.
AV Foundation brings back QT7-features to QTX. Apple uses AV Foundation in the new QTX-player of Lion.
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
The functions inside FCP do not need the OS support. Apple can install private frameworks, and they do it already, for their own applications. So i think they will support SL.
AV Foundation brings back QT7-features to QTX. Apple uses AV Foundation in the new QTX-player of Lion.
apachie2k
Sep 19, 06:55 AM
i wanna a lot of ram in my new 64 bit mbp!! and umm what else....:confused: :eek:
SeaFox
Apr 8, 01:49 AM
Best Buy is now WORST BUY!!!!
2004 called. They want their joke back. :rolleyes:
I think it would be quite hilarious if Best Best lost their iPads and everyone had to go to ToysRUs instead. :D
2004 called. They want their joke back. :rolleyes:
I think it would be quite hilarious if Best Best lost their iPads and everyone had to go to ToysRUs instead. :D
jasweb
Apr 8, 08:54 AM
Final Cut Playmobil for the reel editors
http://www.thinkgeek.com/interests/looflirpa/e8bb/
Made me laugh... then it made me cry...
http://www.thinkgeek.com/interests/looflirpa/e8bb/
Made me laugh... then it made me cry...
wmmk
Aug 20, 01:04 AM
Anyone ever check and see if Quicktime was Universal
if i'm not mistaken, it's been universal since osx for intel was released.
if i'm not mistaken, it's been universal since osx for intel was released.
No comments:
Post a Comment