zap2
Jul 24, 02:37 PM
Good new because after using my BT Apple mouse, no way i was going wired even for Mighty Mouse
Darrin Bell
Jul 13, 01:31 AM
I hope microsoft has the name 'iBox' trademarked.. wouldn't want apple to ever make an iBox...I know that's facetious, but I agree. I'd rather avoid brand confusion. I still remember having a hard time convincing an elderly friend that her piece of crap computer was not an Apple iMac, it was an eMachine.
twoodcc
Sep 18, 06:34 PM
We should try to pump up the team with these new bigadv units.
This team slowed down huge when the GPU client came out, which is Windows only.
we do need to pump up the team, and get more involved on this forum.
yes the GPU client is windows only, but i've heard that you can run a GPU client in linux. and i don't mean in wine either. but i've heard it's very tricky to get working
This team slowed down huge when the GPU client came out, which is Windows only.
we do need to pump up the team, and get more involved on this forum.
yes the GPU client is windows only, but i've heard that you can run a GPU client in linux. and i don't mean in wine either. but i've heard it's very tricky to get working
iPie
Sep 30, 10:27 AM
A lot of gripes in this thread, well... ...here's how you can do something about it:
go to: hearusnow.org
or use the link below to (easily) send a message to your elected representative.
https://secure.consumersunion.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2137&s_src=EH99Y01&s_subsrc=103372000229820601033720002298206012
go to: hearusnow.org
or use the link below to (easily) send a message to your elected representative.
https://secure.consumersunion.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2137&s_src=EH99Y01&s_subsrc=103372000229820601033720002298206012
more...
powers74
Apr 12, 10:01 AM
I see the logic, I'm still betting on Jan.
Iconoclysm
Apr 21, 11:44 PM
Let me help you out, since you've got it wrong.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_(supply_chain)
I never said they weren't a vendor. Let me help you out...try reading the post.
What I was getting at, because a Vendor can provide anything from software to consultants to hardware to designs, is that it's important to note that Samsung doesn't design the parts. They just manufacture them.
And, let's be clear - this is the definition of Vendor:
ven�dor
�noun
1.
a person or agency that sells.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_(supply_chain)
I never said they weren't a vendor. Let me help you out...try reading the post.
What I was getting at, because a Vendor can provide anything from software to consultants to hardware to designs, is that it's important to note that Samsung doesn't design the parts. They just manufacture them.
And, let's be clear - this is the definition of Vendor:
ven�dor
�noun
1.
a person or agency that sells.
more...
firewood
Apr 14, 10:24 AM
A native Mac OS X app that will run iOS apps.
Interesting possibility. It would be extremely difficult to emulate a complete iOS device (custom ASICs and all). But Apple could emulate just enough ARM instructions to emulate an app that was compiled by Xcode & LLVM (which would limit the way ARM instructions were generated), and used only legal public iOS APIs (instead of emulating hardware and all the registers), which could be translated in Cocoa APIs to display on a Mac OS X machine.
Interesting possibility. It would be extremely difficult to emulate a complete iOS device (custom ASICs and all). But Apple could emulate just enough ARM instructions to emulate an app that was compiled by Xcode & LLVM (which would limit the way ARM instructions were generated), and used only legal public iOS APIs (instead of emulating hardware and all the registers), which could be translated in Cocoa APIs to display on a Mac OS X machine.
jtara
Apr 14, 11:14 AM
Interesting possibility. It would be extremely difficult to emulate a complete iOS device (custom ASICs and all). But Apple could emulate just enough ARM instructions to emulate an app that was compiled by Xcode & LLVM (which would limit the way ARM instructions were generated), and used only legal public iOS APIs (instead of emulating hardware and all the registers), which could be translated in Cocoa APIs to display on a Mac OS X machine.
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
more...
Small White Car
Sep 30, 09:37 AM
Apple didn't necessarily want an exclusive carrier. That does nothing for Apple's business. AT&T obviously paid for Apple's exclusivity.
So you're saying that AT&T gives Apple money...but that does nothing for Apple's business?
So you're saying that AT&T gives Apple money...but that does nothing for Apple's business?
Mac-Addict
Oct 24, 08:59 AM
Cheers - I suspected as much.
Looking forward to replacing it next year tho' - by then under �1500 is going to go along way - plus my wife qualifies for a discount because she works for the NHS.
Iain
Are you joking! You can get a discount for working at NHS?! Maybe I should consider a job in medicine!
Looking forward to replacing it next year tho' - by then under �1500 is going to go along way - plus my wife qualifies for a discount because she works for the NHS.
Iain
Are you joking! You can get a discount for working at NHS?! Maybe I should consider a job in medicine!
more...
iMJustAGuy
Apr 14, 06:31 AM
Called it! (About 8 months ago. ;))
WestonHarvey1
Apr 13, 03:39 PM
I would hate this. TV technology is very taste specific, and Apple would have to get behind a single one. I like plasma, you may like LCD. Edge lit, back lit, 3D or no 3D? 3 color or 4 color elements?
I think Apple TV is the right way to go. A simple box that converts any TV of your choice into whatever TV experience Apple has in mind.
I think Apple TV is the right way to go. A simple box that converts any TV of your choice into whatever TV experience Apple has in mind.
more...
Stella
Jul 24, 07:39 PM
that's at least 3 MX-1000 users we have that are well-satisfied :-)
+1 more!
MX-1000 are great, and very comfortable
+1 more!
MX-1000 are great, and very comfortable
PCClone
Apr 26, 12:37 PM
Damn you Apple. You charged me for my iPad and iMac. I should get them for FREE!!!!!!
more...
stroked
May 1, 11:45 PM
Osama is dead, so what? The U.S needed him alive.
for what?
for what?
JangoFett124
May 3, 08:52 AM
Did the low-end, $1199 model disappear from the store page?
more...
Fujiko7
Apr 5, 07:26 AM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5261/5588966287_5f8eb32f3e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tristangage/5588966287/)
let sleeping dogs lie (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tristangage/5588966287/)
Nice, peaceful photo. The soft tones perfectly match the sleeping dog.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5021/5590691636_827027de43_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5590691636/)
Great colours on this one. Do you think it would look even better cropped slightly?
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/094/2/5/porter_shoot_ii_apr_2011_by_jasonbeck-d3d9c2o.jpg
Charming photo. You've clearly built a rapport with the subject.
OK, here's mine for today. This was taken with iPhone using the Hipstamatic app. It was taken on the cliffs just north of Bude, in Cornwall, this past weekend. Some on this board may consider this "gimmicky", especially with the "aged" look of the framing, but I think this one worked pretty well. I would appreciate any c&c on this.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5307/5584284229_e31642e02c_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dgeen/5584284229/sizes/z/in/photostream/)
let sleeping dogs lie (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tristangage/5588966287/)
Nice, peaceful photo. The soft tones perfectly match the sleeping dog.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5021/5590691636_827027de43_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5590691636/)
Great colours on this one. Do you think it would look even better cropped slightly?
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/094/2/5/porter_shoot_ii_apr_2011_by_jasonbeck-d3d9c2o.jpg
Charming photo. You've clearly built a rapport with the subject.
OK, here's mine for today. This was taken with iPhone using the Hipstamatic app. It was taken on the cliffs just north of Bude, in Cornwall, this past weekend. Some on this board may consider this "gimmicky", especially with the "aged" look of the framing, but I think this one worked pretty well. I would appreciate any c&c on this.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5307/5584284229_e31642e02c_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dgeen/5584284229/sizes/z/in/photostream/)
firestarter
Apr 19, 04:38 PM
Now, you were complaining I used 100/100 in the CPU analogy? fine, I will change it. CPU will be 90/100 and GPU is 80/100 as the 30% increase in cpu and 30% decrease in gpu, we will see a difference of 117/100 and 56/100. Am I arguing that there will be nothing to be gained from a bump in processor speed? Definitely not! Who doesnt love the little extra power when we need it? Who doesnt want the latest in tech?
These are all random/nonsensical figures you've made up FX4568. Outside of gaming, there are prescious few apps that will be affected by a 30% decrease in GPU. Your '100 baseline' beneath which a GPU becomes unusable bears no relation to reality.
This will be even more true as Apple becomes better at optimising for Grand Central dispatch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Central_Dispatch). As an example the new Final Cut Pro X is said to optimise and scale well across all sizes of systems. I'd expect a much faster processor to 'soak up' the GPU drop in this instance.
What im saying is that the downgrading of the GPU outweights the upgrading of the CPU in terms of OVERALL performance.
No. Outside of gaming, a larger proportion of processing is done in the CPU than the GPU, and improving the CPU will yield greater benefits.
But as of me and the I believe majority of MBA owners
You can only really talk for yourself and others in this thread that subscribe to that opinion. What evidence to you have that the majority would notice?
I would expect that most MBA owners aren't hardcore gamers - it's just not that sort of machine. Medium power graphic uses, like productivity apps or watching movies wouldn't be noticeably impacted.
Of course, I don't have any figures to back up that belief either. ;)
These are all random/nonsensical figures you've made up FX4568. Outside of gaming, there are prescious few apps that will be affected by a 30% decrease in GPU. Your '100 baseline' beneath which a GPU becomes unusable bears no relation to reality.
This will be even more true as Apple becomes better at optimising for Grand Central dispatch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Central_Dispatch). As an example the new Final Cut Pro X is said to optimise and scale well across all sizes of systems. I'd expect a much faster processor to 'soak up' the GPU drop in this instance.
What im saying is that the downgrading of the GPU outweights the upgrading of the CPU in terms of OVERALL performance.
No. Outside of gaming, a larger proportion of processing is done in the CPU than the GPU, and improving the CPU will yield greater benefits.
But as of me and the I believe majority of MBA owners
You can only really talk for yourself and others in this thread that subscribe to that opinion. What evidence to you have that the majority would notice?
I would expect that most MBA owners aren't hardcore gamers - it's just not that sort of machine. Medium power graphic uses, like productivity apps or watching movies wouldn't be noticeably impacted.
Of course, I don't have any figures to back up that belief either. ;)
bushido
Apr 12, 06:32 PM
I heard the iphone 5 is delayed because the HTC Sensation has sent Apple back to the drawing board.
lmao love it and so true + they need some time to spin the numbers in their favor for the keynote somehow
lmao love it and so true + they need some time to spin the numbers in their favor for the keynote somehow
Mattlike
Sep 14, 08:53 AM
:D
http://siennaplantationrealtor.com/images/SOLD%20sign.jpg
Congrats!
http://siennaplantationrealtor.com/images/SOLD%20sign.jpg
Congrats!
Popeye206
Apr 13, 08:51 PM
That is why I put a mild sarcasm tag at the end of my post, guess this did not work and I have to use [/sarcasm] to get my point across.
Opps.... my bad! I swear I can read, I just can't see tonight! :D
Opps.... my bad! I swear I can read, I just can't see tonight! :D
Rodimus Prime
Mar 29, 08:22 PM
1. Professional conferences cost that much.
2. Apple sends 1000 of their engineers that you can talk with. Who is Google sending? How accessible are they?
3. WWDC is more days.
Number 2 above is one of the reasons that it would be difficult to move to a larger venue. It might accommodate more people, but the real value is getting to talk with Apple engineers and ask questions. If they made the venue larger, your chances of getting to talk with them becomes slim. It's a tough problem to solve.
It is Apple. Number 2 is not the reason. Chances are moving it to another venue would cost more money which means less profit.
Google is more than likely just trying to cover cost. Apple is going to try to make a profit.
2. Apple sends 1000 of their engineers that you can talk with. Who is Google sending? How accessible are they?
3. WWDC is more days.
Number 2 above is one of the reasons that it would be difficult to move to a larger venue. It might accommodate more people, but the real value is getting to talk with Apple engineers and ask questions. If they made the venue larger, your chances of getting to talk with them becomes slim. It's a tough problem to solve.
It is Apple. Number 2 is not the reason. Chances are moving it to another venue would cost more money which means less profit.
Google is more than likely just trying to cover cost. Apple is going to try to make a profit.
PghLondon
May 1, 05:39 AM
You do realize that there are a set of minimum requirements that an Android phone must adhere to to be granted access to Android Market?
Yup, and that's irrelevant to the discussion. Phones that aren't granted access to that market are still counted as Android devices.
I don't know how long you have been into Smartphones but smartphone marketshare has always been calculated this way, even in the old days of Symbian and Windows Mobile which also ran on non smart phone PDA's.PDA's were excluded from smart phone market share despite running the same OS.
"Smartphone OS" market share has been around before Android and iOS even existed as a platform and isnt some tool to belittle Apple's perceived performance in any way. Its just a metric in a sea of metrics that count things to different cirteria.
"Smartphone OS" is a totally meaningless metric. It's as useful as "laptop OS" versus "desktop OS". Yes, you can report on it, but it begs the question "why?". And the answer is (9 times out of 10) "to make us look good, even though we're losing the battle that really counts".
Yup, and that's irrelevant to the discussion. Phones that aren't granted access to that market are still counted as Android devices.
I don't know how long you have been into Smartphones but smartphone marketshare has always been calculated this way, even in the old days of Symbian and Windows Mobile which also ran on non smart phone PDA's.PDA's were excluded from smart phone market share despite running the same OS.
"Smartphone OS" market share has been around before Android and iOS even existed as a platform and isnt some tool to belittle Apple's perceived performance in any way. Its just a metric in a sea of metrics that count things to different cirteria.
"Smartphone OS" is a totally meaningless metric. It's as useful as "laptop OS" versus "desktop OS". Yes, you can report on it, but it begs the question "why?". And the answer is (9 times out of 10) "to make us look good, even though we're losing the battle that really counts".
Schnebar
Apr 1, 07:57 AM
Took this over Spring Break in Delphi, Greece
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar