toddybody
Apr 19, 02:15 PM
Seriously?! How long have you been waiting? Since last refresh?
Keep dreaming. They couldn't even get a Radeon HD 5770, let alone a 5850. The best that could be done was a 5750 in the 27", and while it's not a terrible GPU, it's certainly nowhere near pro-level.
Lulz to that. It's not like those things weren't key to the Early 2011 MacBook Pros being as critically acclaimed as they are now.
No. While Mac mini updates could be right around the corner, the two are on different release timelines and aren't always released at the same time. Essentially, it's irrelevant.
If the 5750 was the best that we got on the highest end model of current, then I'd be shocked if we got anything past 6770. We're definitely not getting cards that use up as much power as the iMac itself or require a second six-pin connector in the Desktop PCIe equivalent.
Since July 2010; not even a full year really.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it'll ever happen.
How many of those machines have you seen naked? As in, without the glass or panel with bare innards in full view? My guess is not very many. They don't have the room to engineer a better video card in the 27". It's almost a wonder they even have the room for something like the Radeon HD 5750 in what they have now. It's not like they took the design of the 21.5", gave it a larger chasis and screen and suddenly had more room to play with. Even so, as it stands, both sizes of iMac get extraordinarily hot. Sure, the 5750 in the Mid-2010 27" model draws less heat than the 4850 in the Late-2009 27" model, but that difference is negligible and even with a 6 series GPU's improvement, I doubt the difference will be substantial enough to warrant THAT much more power relative to the 6 series' lineup.
So, no, they couldn't engineer THAT much better of a card if they wanted. Not without making the iMac thicker than it already is. But it's Apple, they never do.
So, Mom amp; Dad - I hope you
We+love+you+mom+and+dad
We+love+you+mom+and+dad
parents Love+you+mom+dad
love you mom. we love you mom
i love you mom and dad
We Love You Very Much, Mom and
Mom amp; Dad; We Love You Mom.
we love you mom and dad,
we love you, mom id really
i love you mom and dad
i love you mom and dad
i love you mom and dad. i love
i love you mom and dad. i love
love you mom and dad. i love
for you! Love Mom and Dad
i love you mom and dad
love you mom dad.
Keep dreaming. They couldn't even get a Radeon HD 5770, let alone a 5850. The best that could be done was a 5750 in the 27", and while it's not a terrible GPU, it's certainly nowhere near pro-level.
Lulz to that. It's not like those things weren't key to the Early 2011 MacBook Pros being as critically acclaimed as they are now.
No. While Mac mini updates could be right around the corner, the two are on different release timelines and aren't always released at the same time. Essentially, it's irrelevant.
If the 5750 was the best that we got on the highest end model of current, then I'd be shocked if we got anything past 6770. We're definitely not getting cards that use up as much power as the iMac itself or require a second six-pin connector in the Desktop PCIe equivalent.
Since July 2010; not even a full year really.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it'll ever happen.
How many of those machines have you seen naked? As in, without the glass or panel with bare innards in full view? My guess is not very many. They don't have the room to engineer a better video card in the 27". It's almost a wonder they even have the room for something like the Radeon HD 5750 in what they have now. It's not like they took the design of the 21.5", gave it a larger chasis and screen and suddenly had more room to play with. Even so, as it stands, both sizes of iMac get extraordinarily hot. Sure, the 5750 in the Mid-2010 27" model draws less heat than the 4850 in the Late-2009 27" model, but that difference is negligible and even with a 6 series GPU's improvement, I doubt the difference will be substantial enough to warrant THAT much more power relative to the 6 series' lineup.
So, no, they couldn't engineer THAT much better of a card if they wanted. Not without making the iMac thicker than it already is. But it's Apple, they never do.
RaceTripper
Jan 10, 03:57 PM
That's about 700 pounds too much!
;)
...Some day I may work on that problem. Once it's paid for and I have another car as a daily driver, the JCW could become a dedicated track car with a proper rollcage and bucket and all the unnecessary weight evicted.
;)
...Some day I may work on that problem. Once it's paid for and I have another car as a daily driver, the JCW could become a dedicated track car with a proper rollcage and bucket and all the unnecessary weight evicted.
MacBoobsPro
Jul 18, 03:55 AM
Yeah, if it's $9.99 to rent, it's going to fail. $1.99, might be worth it. I'm sure a lot of people will be happy, then a lot of people will complain. Both with have good points, but the rest of us won't care.
This is were the movie bigwigs are shooting themselves in the foot. I would rather pay $5 - $10 for a download (to keep) than $1.99 (or similar) for a rental. More people want to keep the movies and will pay more for them. I.e. more income for the studios etc.
What are they freakin' stupid?
I know for a fact - if it ever makes it to the UK store :mad: - that i will hardly download any if they are on a rental model. If its pay to own i will be downloading loads.
EDIT: And i agree with bigandys post above!
This is were the movie bigwigs are shooting themselves in the foot. I would rather pay $5 - $10 for a download (to keep) than $1.99 (or similar) for a rental. More people want to keep the movies and will pay more for them. I.e. more income for the studios etc.
What are they freakin' stupid?
I know for a fact - if it ever makes it to the UK store :mad: - that i will hardly download any if they are on a rental model. If its pay to own i will be downloading loads.
EDIT: And i agree with bigandys post above!
mdriftmeyer
Mar 22, 08:00 PM
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
220GB of FLAC songs is not 50,000 songs.
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
220GB of FLAC songs is not 50,000 songs.
skunk
Mar 31, 01:11 PM
Well regarding defeating the Nazi's and the Axis powers, one can credit the US to turning the tide. When the Nazis like practically conquered everyone in their path and are invading the UK, the Brits had to transfer a lot of technologies they made for the war to the US...where the US industrial might pretty much defined what we know today as "air dominance". Even though the Brits did make a lot of neat weapons (as traditional to their roots), the US was the one who turned those into massive amounts of airplanes, carriers, and sophisticated radars for killing Nazi and Japanese air planes and submarines.
So I mean, without the Brits, the US might not have been able to make all those toys so fast, but without the US, the Brits would have fell. But in retrospect, I feel that the Allies would have won anyway...just that it would have ended with many more atomic bombs dropped all over the place by the US.Probably the most idiotic analysis of WW2 I have ever read. I await with interest to hear where and when the Germans invaded.
So I mean, without the Brits, the US might not have been able to make all those toys so fast, but without the US, the Brits would have fell. But in retrospect, I feel that the Allies would have won anyway...just that it would have ended with many more atomic bombs dropped all over the place by the US.Probably the most idiotic analysis of WW2 I have ever read. I await with interest to hear where and when the Germans invaded.
Arcady
Sep 6, 06:35 PM
A Netflix subscription and a spindle of DVD-R discs is cheaper then one new movie from Apple.
Sorry, not interested.
Sorry, not interested.
blevins321
Mar 22, 04:32 PM
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
Not just songs. Could be used with a media dock for movies and TV shows too. And don't say Apple TV2. I mean away from your home.
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
Not just songs. Could be used with a media dock for movies and TV shows too. And don't say Apple TV2. I mean away from your home.
Josias
Aug 7, 01:22 AM
They should post this:
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/2733/windowsvistagc0.jpg
I love Apple slaughtering Windows...:D
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/2733/windowsvistagc0.jpg
I love Apple slaughtering Windows...:D
Biff...
Feb 21, 04:11 PM
Gotta stop looking at this thread, its giving me to many ideas that will cost me dearly. :eek:
NebulaClash
Sep 15, 08:08 AM
No one has offered to have an Apple Rep come out to my house to pick up my iPhone 4 to fit the case, because that's unreasonable.
Right, and what Apple has proposed doing is very reasonable. They have a product that works well for the majority of users. It's the highest-rated phone CR tested. For a few people, there is an issue. All summer long Apple has allowed everyone, those with the issue and all of those with no problems, to have a free case. Now they are saying you've had plenty of time to get your free case, now we will just give it to those who, you know, actually need one. Just let us know, and you get the bumper free. How on earth is that hard?
Meanwhile they are going to alter the design of the phone so that even this issue will go away for future models.
What does CR want? A total recall? For what? Most people have no issue, there is no danger, the few people who have the issue get a free solution, what would be the point of doing it any other way?
Auto manufacturers publicize the issue, make a solution possible, but it's up to the car's owner to approach the dealership to get that free solution. CR sez this is a good thing.
Apple publicizes the issue, makes a solution possible, but it's up to the phone's owner to approach Apple to get that free solution. CR sez this is unacceptable.
All other phone manufacturers get ignored.
Hypocrisy.
Right, and what Apple has proposed doing is very reasonable. They have a product that works well for the majority of users. It's the highest-rated phone CR tested. For a few people, there is an issue. All summer long Apple has allowed everyone, those with the issue and all of those with no problems, to have a free case. Now they are saying you've had plenty of time to get your free case, now we will just give it to those who, you know, actually need one. Just let us know, and you get the bumper free. How on earth is that hard?
Meanwhile they are going to alter the design of the phone so that even this issue will go away for future models.
What does CR want? A total recall? For what? Most people have no issue, there is no danger, the few people who have the issue get a free solution, what would be the point of doing it any other way?
Auto manufacturers publicize the issue, make a solution possible, but it's up to the car's owner to approach the dealership to get that free solution. CR sez this is a good thing.
Apple publicizes the issue, makes a solution possible, but it's up to the phone's owner to approach Apple to get that free solution. CR sez this is unacceptable.
All other phone manufacturers get ignored.
Hypocrisy.
Dougie H
Mar 25, 09:41 PM
I find it frustrating that Firemint continues to hype this game and talk innovation when the game does not even work as advertised today, supporting both original and second iPad's. Crash and burn. How about a news release on the improvements they will be making to stop the crashing rather than this pathetic self promoting fallacy.
zombierunner
Apr 19, 12:36 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Thank goodness .. Finally an iMac rumour ... I am still going to wait a bit more and buy it when the new iMacs ship with lion preinstalled .... July I guess
Really hoping for 1080p target display mode will be supported in the new iMacs ...
Thank goodness .. Finally an iMac rumour ... I am still going to wait a bit more and buy it when the new iMacs ship with lion preinstalled .... July I guess
Really hoping for 1080p target display mode will be supported in the new iMacs ...
Nishi100
Apr 22, 10:45 AM
I think that it's to do with the geo-location on the camera app, as a person would want to immediately launch the camera app and take a picture, without waiting for the GPS to lock on to them.
That is fine; however, not encrypting the data isn't "fine" at all - they should at least try to keep our location secret, or delete the older GPS locations.
That is fine; however, not encrypting the data isn't "fine" at all - they should at least try to keep our location secret, or delete the older GPS locations.
mdntcallr
Sep 6, 09:06 AM
cmon apple. get a clue.
these little mini's are nice but not great. there is a real void in your product lineup.
we need something with like a intel conroe chip, larger case, the ability to put in a better graphics card, and the basics like more ram, bigger hard drive and stuff.
give us a bigger mid sized tower type computer.
we all don't want to buy something with a screen. nor do we want some tiny puny non-upgradeable thing like the mac mini.
give us better options.
these little mini's are nice but not great. there is a real void in your product lineup.
we need something with like a intel conroe chip, larger case, the ability to put in a better graphics card, and the basics like more ram, bigger hard drive and stuff.
give us a bigger mid sized tower type computer.
we all don't want to buy something with a screen. nor do we want some tiny puny non-upgradeable thing like the mac mini.
give us better options.
apb3
Aug 31, 10:12 AM
Blue sky on wireless? Think a device which works out presence of others, and can connect safely.
Imagine being able to *share* (not stream, but share) your tunes with others on a "I'm interested in your... can I share/get that from you).
This goes beyond fair use and would not be legal. Just because I buy a song or CD, movie whatever does not mean I can give it to all my friends. I'm sure you didn't mean that
If you want to use up all your authorized machines (what is it? 5 now?) for a few friends to listen to a few songs every once in a while - I guess that would be arguably OK, but I think it would still go beyond fair use rules.
Being on the tube/commuting for ~ 1 1/2 hours a day or so and seeing >6 ipods through glancing for white buds alone, the possiblities are huge.
What are net connections used mostly for (in terms of Mb up/down) It's P2P. There wouldn't be any roaming charges, any peak rates. You could do it in a lecture room, whilst you were studying, or having coffee with friends (sharing tunes, rather than listening )
Think one big interacting social darknet :D Think virality without PC's needed.
Someone has a cool tune, and it could replicate exponentially!
For more benefits: Linking up to USB wireless receiver chips - you can wireless move files to/from PC.
Hands free driving - using changeable function paddles/butons on the steeering wheel. Hell - You could have a HUD of iTunes on a car soon (or at the very least, hook it up to those screens in the back of those orrible 4x4s )
In terms of illegal possibilities, think discogs. The amount of music you'll bump into increases a lot, so the rarer stuff might be out there. You could strike up a friendship with someone who had say, the entire back catalogue of (insert your fave band/movie/TV series). People could be walking lossless discographies of current artists. A discog of an artist is at most probably under 10Gig, so for a >60Gig player...
Who needs radio when you can stream? You could get it to actively hunt for a MP3 id tag genre - rock/pop, or highly rated artists. You could have the function to hunt for certain artists/songs...
That's another reason why I want wireless.
All this still does not tip the scales in terms of cost/benefit. Wireless will eat up your battery. It will be clumsy and frustrating (I would really hate for the new Streets single to break off midway through because iPod girl gets off at her stop or walks out of range). Also, I would not be thrilled adding drain to my battery by engaging sharing/wireless just so a bunch of strangers can mooch off of me. If my friend wants to listen to a song I have there are many ways he can do so without adding cost to the iPod and my time by having to charge the iPod all the time to make it possible in the first place
As for wireless sync... why? My god man, if we've come to the point where putting the iPod in its base is too difficult, we're screwed. Maybe there'd be the odd time when you forgot your cable or dock on a trip but that should be a rare enough occurence. If you find you always forget your cables, get an extra. You're also not addressing that you'd need that cable or dock for charging anyway (especially since you're going to be using that wireless feature to kill your battery much more quickly).
The chance that someone with an iPod (who also happens to be willing to kill their battery for my enjoyment) will be in range long enough for me to enjoy a few x-ray specks or spacemen 3 tracks are, in my opinion, close to nil.
The car options using wireless make some degree of sense (you'd be able to charge the unit by the cig lighter at least), but this seems better addressed by car/stereo makers. They're already doing it. Theree are also adapters for sale that do this.
I don't have all I need yet in this area but hooking my iPod up to the charger/FM transmitter I have let's me use the steering wheel controls for everything except the menu/scrolling bits (I know that's a big thing but I've got it set up so the iPod in it's charger/transmitter is right next to my knee and easier to manipulate than a cell phone and no harder than using the controls on the radio that are not available on the steering column). The HUD would be cool, though, and would make me a safer driver... I always wanted a HUD for my car. I think Cadillac actually had a model with an optional HUD for the main instrument panel items a while back. I wonder why more auto makers don't do this... or do they and I am just ignorant?
All in all, I just don't see enough good in adding wireless (of whatever kind) to the iPod to justify it. Now, a non-iPod (new) product that had wireless with a limited music/photo/video feature set (iPhone?, iBerry?) might be on the horizon. That wouldn't be bad as it would give those you feel the same as you the option to get their much needed "wireless," while letting others enjoy the most elegant, easy to use media player on the market without the bloat.
Imagine being able to *share* (not stream, but share) your tunes with others on a "I'm interested in your... can I share/get that from you).
This goes beyond fair use and would not be legal. Just because I buy a song or CD, movie whatever does not mean I can give it to all my friends. I'm sure you didn't mean that
If you want to use up all your authorized machines (what is it? 5 now?) for a few friends to listen to a few songs every once in a while - I guess that would be arguably OK, but I think it would still go beyond fair use rules.
Being on the tube/commuting for ~ 1 1/2 hours a day or so and seeing >6 ipods through glancing for white buds alone, the possiblities are huge.
What are net connections used mostly for (in terms of Mb up/down) It's P2P. There wouldn't be any roaming charges, any peak rates. You could do it in a lecture room, whilst you were studying, or having coffee with friends (sharing tunes, rather than listening )
Think one big interacting social darknet :D Think virality without PC's needed.
Someone has a cool tune, and it could replicate exponentially!
For more benefits: Linking up to USB wireless receiver chips - you can wireless move files to/from PC.
Hands free driving - using changeable function paddles/butons on the steeering wheel. Hell - You could have a HUD of iTunes on a car soon (or at the very least, hook it up to those screens in the back of those orrible 4x4s )
In terms of illegal possibilities, think discogs. The amount of music you'll bump into increases a lot, so the rarer stuff might be out there. You could strike up a friendship with someone who had say, the entire back catalogue of (insert your fave band/movie/TV series). People could be walking lossless discographies of current artists. A discog of an artist is at most probably under 10Gig, so for a >60Gig player...
Who needs radio when you can stream? You could get it to actively hunt for a MP3 id tag genre - rock/pop, or highly rated artists. You could have the function to hunt for certain artists/songs...
That's another reason why I want wireless.
All this still does not tip the scales in terms of cost/benefit. Wireless will eat up your battery. It will be clumsy and frustrating (I would really hate for the new Streets single to break off midway through because iPod girl gets off at her stop or walks out of range). Also, I would not be thrilled adding drain to my battery by engaging sharing/wireless just so a bunch of strangers can mooch off of me. If my friend wants to listen to a song I have there are many ways he can do so without adding cost to the iPod and my time by having to charge the iPod all the time to make it possible in the first place
As for wireless sync... why? My god man, if we've come to the point where putting the iPod in its base is too difficult, we're screwed. Maybe there'd be the odd time when you forgot your cable or dock on a trip but that should be a rare enough occurence. If you find you always forget your cables, get an extra. You're also not addressing that you'd need that cable or dock for charging anyway (especially since you're going to be using that wireless feature to kill your battery much more quickly).
The chance that someone with an iPod (who also happens to be willing to kill their battery for my enjoyment) will be in range long enough for me to enjoy a few x-ray specks or spacemen 3 tracks are, in my opinion, close to nil.
The car options using wireless make some degree of sense (you'd be able to charge the unit by the cig lighter at least), but this seems better addressed by car/stereo makers. They're already doing it. Theree are also adapters for sale that do this.
I don't have all I need yet in this area but hooking my iPod up to the charger/FM transmitter I have let's me use the steering wheel controls for everything except the menu/scrolling bits (I know that's a big thing but I've got it set up so the iPod in it's charger/transmitter is right next to my knee and easier to manipulate than a cell phone and no harder than using the controls on the radio that are not available on the steering column). The HUD would be cool, though, and would make me a safer driver... I always wanted a HUD for my car. I think Cadillac actually had a model with an optional HUD for the main instrument panel items a while back. I wonder why more auto makers don't do this... or do they and I am just ignorant?
All in all, I just don't see enough good in adding wireless (of whatever kind) to the iPod to justify it. Now, a non-iPod (new) product that had wireless with a limited music/photo/video feature set (iPhone?, iBerry?) might be on the horizon. That wouldn't be bad as it would give those you feel the same as you the option to get their much needed "wireless," while letting others enjoy the most elegant, easy to use media player on the market without the bloat.
itsmeGAV
Jan 31, 04:23 PM
As a person who owns 2 MK4 VWs and who's 4 closest friends drive MK4 Jettas, I'd never want to be associated with that.
This is how you make a MK4 look nice:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4119/4794436687_2a531d48e5_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4143/4794433771_2a2014c124_b.jpg
Just have to wait for the snow to go away to mount my r32 sideskirts and get my spacers on the wheels.
imo, it needs deep dish wheels.. (or ronal turbo's)
still it's a nice ride non the less!
This is how you make a MK4 look nice:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4119/4794436687_2a531d48e5_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4143/4794433771_2a2014c124_b.jpg
Just have to wait for the snow to go away to mount my r32 sideskirts and get my spacers on the wheels.
imo, it needs deep dish wheels.. (or ronal turbo's)
still it's a nice ride non the less!
Lord Blackadder
Mar 21, 02:36 PM
Twitter (http://twitter.com/ShababLibya) is informative, but after 42 years of impotence, normal service cannot be resumed instantaneously. The prospects seem remarkably good, though, that what emerges from this will be an unusually honest democracy.
I hope so, but the next question is how long Libya will have miultiple governments, and under what conditions the rebels recieve official international recognition.
I hope so, but the next question is how long Libya will have miultiple governments, and under what conditions the rebels recieve official international recognition.
Rodimus Prime
Feb 26, 11:14 PM
I currently have a 4.7L V8 Dodge Dakota. I'd buy a diesel version of it in a heartbeat. I could still get the power/hauling ability needed but have the mileage to justify having the pickup.
But now with the possibility of having $5/gal gas looming, the 18 HWY MPG may force my hand.
Had the truck for over 5 years, but it may get too cost prohibitive to keep.
I take it you need to haul, tow stuff often enough that not having the truck would be painful.
My dad refuses to get rid of there 1995 Ram that gets like 15 MPG HWY on a good day because it is nice to have a truck for when stuff needs to be hauled or we need the bed.
Mind you the truck has been pretty much reduced to just that type of duty or if one of our other cars are out of action for one reason or another it is a spare vehicle.
SUV and trucks have their places. Problem I see is to many people only want trucks when really in a family with 2 vehicles you really only need a max of 1 SUV/truck between them and a car for the rest. That is how my parents did it for a while. SUV for my mom/family car and a gas and my dad drove a car.
Dad car mainly went 2 and from work and my mom SUV was for when the family went somewhere together and my mom drove it to and from work but my mom drove like 6 miles each way compared to my dads near 30 miles each way.
But now with the possibility of having $5/gal gas looming, the 18 HWY MPG may force my hand.
Had the truck for over 5 years, but it may get too cost prohibitive to keep.
I take it you need to haul, tow stuff often enough that not having the truck would be painful.
My dad refuses to get rid of there 1995 Ram that gets like 15 MPG HWY on a good day because it is nice to have a truck for when stuff needs to be hauled or we need the bed.
Mind you the truck has been pretty much reduced to just that type of duty or if one of our other cars are out of action for one reason or another it is a spare vehicle.
SUV and trucks have their places. Problem I see is to many people only want trucks when really in a family with 2 vehicles you really only need a max of 1 SUV/truck between them and a car for the rest. That is how my parents did it for a while. SUV for my mom/family car and a gas and my dad drove a car.
Dad car mainly went 2 and from work and my mom SUV was for when the family went somewhere together and my mom drove it to and from work but my mom drove like 6 miles each way compared to my dads near 30 miles each way.
aiqw9182
Mar 25, 01:55 PM
That's not the correct answer. The possible answers concerning the documented hardware capabilities are:
- That's not enough for any OpenCL
- That's enough for OpenCL 1.0
- That's enough for OpenCL 1.1
That's not the correct answer? Lol, how much longer are you going to waste my time for? DirectX in it of itself is not related to OpenCL. They are once again, two separate entities. Support for OpenCL 1.0 means support for OpenCL 1.1. DirectCompute was introduced in DX11 but can be used on DX10 hardware.
I've been sitting here correcting your mis-information, false accusations and asking for you to post some OpenCL applications you've been using. Don't respond until you give me an example of your OpenCL workflow. You seem to love AMD's CPU's but likely have never used one seeing as you have said Windows doesn't cut it and Linux "doesn't have enough commercial applications".
- That's not enough for any OpenCL
- That's enough for OpenCL 1.0
- That's enough for OpenCL 1.1
That's not the correct answer? Lol, how much longer are you going to waste my time for? DirectX in it of itself is not related to OpenCL. They are once again, two separate entities. Support for OpenCL 1.0 means support for OpenCL 1.1. DirectCompute was introduced in DX11 but can be used on DX10 hardware.
I've been sitting here correcting your mis-information, false accusations and asking for you to post some OpenCL applications you've been using. Don't respond until you give me an example of your OpenCL workflow. You seem to love AMD's CPU's but likely have never used one seeing as you have said Windows doesn't cut it and Linux "doesn't have enough commercial applications".
SciFrog
Jan 23, 08:42 AM
Our PPD has dropped 20%from the peak, I lost a big unit this week...
Can't wait for Gulftown and GPU3...
Can't wait for Gulftown and GPU3...
maverick808
Oct 24, 06:12 AM
UK store down too!
Don Kosak
May 2, 05:20 PM
I wonder if this means MacOS will end up with iOS-style "multi-tasking."
iOS style multitasking features (benefits) are indeed in Lion.
Applications written for Lion can "suspend and resume" without having to "save and close" documents. The reason the little light below running apps on the Dock was removed is that "running" is now more of a decision between the App and OS -- not so much the user. (APP - "Am I idle right now? Can I resume from this point very quickly? If so, I'll just suspend myself till the user or an event wakes me back up. No need to burn RAM or CPU, the user won't even notice I'm not here.)
There is no reason with modern computer architecture for humans to do memory management by getting involved with which programs are actually physically in memory/active. We have 7200rpm SATA3 or SSD drives, multicore processors with Gigahertz speeds, and Gigabytes of RAM...
The way we interact with Multitasking in Windows 7 and OS X Snow Leopard is based on the hardware limitations imposed by 640K RAM, 4.7 Megahertz single core processor, and Floppy Disks. Apple took the first brave step away from that with iOS. It's good to see it moving forward in Lion.
iOS style multitasking features (benefits) are indeed in Lion.
Applications written for Lion can "suspend and resume" without having to "save and close" documents. The reason the little light below running apps on the Dock was removed is that "running" is now more of a decision between the App and OS -- not so much the user. (APP - "Am I idle right now? Can I resume from this point very quickly? If so, I'll just suspend myself till the user or an event wakes me back up. No need to burn RAM or CPU, the user won't even notice I'm not here.)
There is no reason with modern computer architecture for humans to do memory management by getting involved with which programs are actually physically in memory/active. We have 7200rpm SATA3 or SSD drives, multicore processors with Gigahertz speeds, and Gigabytes of RAM...
The way we interact with Multitasking in Windows 7 and OS X Snow Leopard is based on the hardware limitations imposed by 640K RAM, 4.7 Megahertz single core processor, and Floppy Disks. Apple took the first brave step away from that with iOS. It's good to see it moving forward in Lion.
mrgreen4242
Sep 6, 10:30 AM
Is it just me, or does the $599 mini *not* let you configure it with a DVD burner?
I came to post the same thing. So you have to pay $150 (price after matching the 80gb HDD) for a SD? Lame. Ya I know you get a faster CPU - put by what, 9%? Big whoop. At least the old mini line up made sense. $200 and you get an extra core, bigger HDD, and a SD... now you get 9%. Bah. If they had dropped the price $100 I would have been all over it.
You can get the 1.66ghz Duo w/ SD and 80gb HDD for $649 refurb still - if it had been $599 I would have jumped, but I'm kinda waiting now. Tell ya' what Apple, give me the 2.0ghz iMac guts in a box, no screen, for $899 EDU ($999 retail) and I'll be the first in line.
I came to post the same thing. So you have to pay $150 (price after matching the 80gb HDD) for a SD? Lame. Ya I know you get a faster CPU - put by what, 9%? Big whoop. At least the old mini line up made sense. $200 and you get an extra core, bigger HDD, and a SD... now you get 9%. Bah. If they had dropped the price $100 I would have been all over it.
You can get the 1.66ghz Duo w/ SD and 80gb HDD for $649 refurb still - if it had been $599 I would have jumped, but I'm kinda waiting now. Tell ya' what Apple, give me the 2.0ghz iMac guts in a box, no screen, for $899 EDU ($999 retail) and I'll be the first in line.
apb3
Aug 18, 07:42 PM
I wish they would make wireless ipods soon. But I just dont think that it's gonna happen.
You can guess my feelings on this from the above discusssion but why do you want the wireless? I have seen one (maybe two) ideas that caught my eye; but not enough too change my opinion on the negative cost/benefit impact including wireless as envisioned by many here would have on my beloved device. I'm just curious as to your possible ideas or is it just cuz wireless is the latest buzzword - regardless whether it is actually useful, beneficial, effective, having a positive impact on the device in question?
So, why do you "...wish that they would make wireless iPods soon,"? What would you like to see in particular, why and how would it work technically?
I know I'm new here and I must seem a negative ass, but I just don't get why many of you would want this, let alone be frothing at the mouth. Do you not see the negatives (or, if not "negatives," at least the redundancy, bloat, PR Hype to get a few extra bucks out of you for something IMO not really worth it, etc? See my voluminous comments above). I really do love apple and it's all I really use when posible in my line of work (that must sound like the "I have black friends," line but it's true in this case). When I'm home, I won't even allow my wife's lab PC to sound the startup/shutdown chime. It's muted or it goes out the window...:D
I've even made inroads with one of the most resistant to change institutions as noted above and an SOB CO who at first laughed at apple then nearly shite himself when I presented a REAL analysis of apple's price/security/abilities/etc benefits vs the crap PCs we're forced to use backed up by my real world work product that he had praised to no end, had officially commmended me for in the past and had no clue the praise was due to the fact that I was skirting the current sec reqs by using my own machines and apps (apple) to blow him and others away at briefings.
Anyway, would you mind sharing why you want it so bad as I asked above?
You can guess my feelings on this from the above discusssion but why do you want the wireless? I have seen one (maybe two) ideas that caught my eye; but not enough too change my opinion on the negative cost/benefit impact including wireless as envisioned by many here would have on my beloved device. I'm just curious as to your possible ideas or is it just cuz wireless is the latest buzzword - regardless whether it is actually useful, beneficial, effective, having a positive impact on the device in question?
So, why do you "...wish that they would make wireless iPods soon,"? What would you like to see in particular, why and how would it work technically?
I know I'm new here and I must seem a negative ass, but I just don't get why many of you would want this, let alone be frothing at the mouth. Do you not see the negatives (or, if not "negatives," at least the redundancy, bloat, PR Hype to get a few extra bucks out of you for something IMO not really worth it, etc? See my voluminous comments above). I really do love apple and it's all I really use when posible in my line of work (that must sound like the "I have black friends," line but it's true in this case). When I'm home, I won't even allow my wife's lab PC to sound the startup/shutdown chime. It's muted or it goes out the window...:D
I've even made inroads with one of the most resistant to change institutions as noted above and an SOB CO who at first laughed at apple then nearly shite himself when I presented a REAL analysis of apple's price/security/abilities/etc benefits vs the crap PCs we're forced to use backed up by my real world work product that he had praised to no end, had officially commmended me for in the past and had no clue the praise was due to the fact that I was skirting the current sec reqs by using my own machines and apps (apple) to blow him and others away at briefings.
Anyway, would you mind sharing why you want it so bad as I asked above?
No comments:
Post a Comment