Vulpinemac
Apr 19, 09:07 PM
Yes. People here are failing to understand the difference between traditional patents that we usually hear about here, and design patents. I believe what Apple is suing over is infringed design patents. That the Galaxy S has a icon grid method for selecting applications is irrelevant in that case. They tried to copy the general design and likeness of the iPhone, which is against the design patents.
Also, whoever it was arguing it previously... Let's not trot out the whole "Apple lost the 'look and feel' argument against Microsoft" thing. That was a different case. Design patents still get filed and granted all the time. This is a new case.
To clarify even farther, the Microsoft "look and feel" lawsuit was a Breach of Copyright suit that Apple lost, not a patent suit. Apple took to patenting their 'look and feel' in order to have a more solid foundation to base future lawsuits.
Also, whoever it was arguing it previously... Let's not trot out the whole "Apple lost the 'look and feel' argument against Microsoft" thing. That was a different case. Design patents still get filed and granted all the time. This is a new case.
To clarify even farther, the Microsoft "look and feel" lawsuit was a Breach of Copyright suit that Apple lost, not a patent suit. Apple took to patenting their 'look and feel' in order to have a more solid foundation to base future lawsuits.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 01:54 PM
Doesn't Europe have many many carriers in each country? There's no carrier that spans the entire EU, is there?
We have many carriers in each country in europe, but we all of them have the same system which allows roaming between networks.
Who wants to pay 400$ for a phone that will look like an antique 12 months from now? That's a lot of money to pay for the status of having a brand new phone.
Why not?
People pay $399 for an iPod today that is antique within 12 months...
We have many carriers in each country in europe, but we all of them have the same system which allows roaming between networks.
Who wants to pay 400$ for a phone that will look like an antique 12 months from now? That's a lot of money to pay for the status of having a brand new phone.
Why not?
People pay $399 for an iPod today that is antique within 12 months...
kavika411
Mar 24, 01:00 PM
I believe a lot of the anti-Obama crap spewed by the Tea Party and Republicans is based more on his race than his party.
Oh. So when a person criticizes Obama for keeping us in Afghanistan, Iraq, and/or Libya, just level an accusation of racism.
Got it.
Oh. So when a person criticizes Obama for keeping us in Afghanistan, Iraq, and/or Libya, just level an accusation of racism.
Got it.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 11:47 AM
The US GSM carriers suck. T-Mobile has great customer service, but their coverage stinks. Cingular has great coverage, but they have BY FAR the worst customer service.
Plus EVDO beats the pants off of EDGE. And Verizon + Sprint + Amp'd + US Cellular + a bunch of other, smaller CDMA carriers account for over 60million potential customers in the US. If they only do a GSM version of the phone, it'll be a big mistake.
isn't it about time you guys got in line with the rest of the world? GSM has more than 81% (http://www.gsacom.com/news/gsa_203.php4?PHPSESSID=7aa4036fa6a16fe0066d2e6dc9430727) of the world market. If you get a cdma phone you are more or less restriced to use it in US, whereas a GSM phone can be used more or less all over the planet.
Plus EVDO beats the pants off of EDGE. And Verizon + Sprint + Amp'd + US Cellular + a bunch of other, smaller CDMA carriers account for over 60million potential customers in the US. If they only do a GSM version of the phone, it'll be a big mistake.
isn't it about time you guys got in line with the rest of the world? GSM has more than 81% (http://www.gsacom.com/news/gsa_203.php4?PHPSESSID=7aa4036fa6a16fe0066d2e6dc9430727) of the world market. If you get a cdma phone you are more or less restriced to use it in US, whereas a GSM phone can be used more or less all over the planet.
Banjhiyi
Mar 26, 07:39 AM
It must be conspiracy right. Right.
It couldn't just be an honest mistake as a result of a stretched development team.
No. It must be the same guys who shot Kennedy messing up all our tech. It's probably something to do with the Chinese.
I kinda covered that in 'sloppy QA or declining standards' but don't let that get in the way of a good flaming.
As you were.
It couldn't just be an honest mistake as a result of a stretched development team.
No. It must be the same guys who shot Kennedy messing up all our tech. It's probably something to do with the Chinese.
I kinda covered that in 'sloppy QA or declining standards' but don't let that get in the way of a good flaming.
As you were.
layte
Mar 31, 03:30 PM
Except Google have made it very clear with Honeycomb that they're not willing to release the source code for the foreseeable future so 'a bit' could be a lot longer than you'd think. More to the point that does manufacturers very little good. If, f'instance, Google decide to only release a version of Android as open source when they release the next version any manufacturer wanting to use it is going to have to grab the open version, make whatever tweaks they want, get it on a device, get it built in bulk and launch it into the relevant sales channel(s). By the time they do that Google is likely to have released another version of Android and they'll be hopelessly out of date.
Make no mistake about this, Google tightening up on the Android T&C's like this makes it almost impossible for anyone outside of Google's control to launch a device that really competes with the manufacturers who are on the inside track, at least from an OS point of view.
I was just pointing out that the code is still open, even if some have to wait longer than has been the case. I'm not saying everything is golden and Google are a paragon of virtue, this is certainly a bit of a sly move on their part.
I cannot help shake the feeling that some of the vitriol from certain people is the fear that a more coherent and unified Android ecosystem is an even bigger threat to the iOS platform.
Make no mistake about this, Google tightening up on the Android T&C's like this makes it almost impossible for anyone outside of Google's control to launch a device that really competes with the manufacturers who are on the inside track, at least from an OS point of view.
I was just pointing out that the code is still open, even if some have to wait longer than has been the case. I'm not saying everything is golden and Google are a paragon of virtue, this is certainly a bit of a sly move on their part.
I cannot help shake the feeling that some of the vitriol from certain people is the fear that a more coherent and unified Android ecosystem is an even bigger threat to the iOS platform.
Magrathea
Apr 6, 11:23 PM
Close, but not quite right.
The Mercury Playback Engine is composed of 3 things:
1. 64 Bit Application
2. Multithreaded Application
3. Processing of some things using CUDA (an NVIDIA card)
If you don't have a CUDA based video card, you still have the Mercury Playback Engine (software) available. What you probably meant to say is that hardware acceleration for the Mercury Playback Engine is not available unless it's a CUDA card.
More info: http://blogs.adobe.com/premiereprotraining/2011/02/cuda-mercury-playback-engine-and-adobe-premiere-pro.html
Best,
Kevin
I can attest to mercury working on both my MBPs 2007 and mid 2008 (8gigs of ram) but add a fast color correction effect on AVCHD or 7D footage and you gotta render - machines grind to a halt, footage not playable at all. Transcode to Prores first and you're golden.
Of course most people will get newer quad core machines but laptop wise apple doesn't have a 1Gig CUDA card for any MBP right?
Also, I have seen tests for people with fancy Quattro 4300fx cards ($1500) NS 6 OR 8 core machines where they turn on and off the hardware acceleration and didn't see much of a difference not a 10x better / $1500 difference. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
The Mercury Playback Engine is composed of 3 things:
1. 64 Bit Application
2. Multithreaded Application
3. Processing of some things using CUDA (an NVIDIA card)
If you don't have a CUDA based video card, you still have the Mercury Playback Engine (software) available. What you probably meant to say is that hardware acceleration for the Mercury Playback Engine is not available unless it's a CUDA card.
More info: http://blogs.adobe.com/premiereprotraining/2011/02/cuda-mercury-playback-engine-and-adobe-premiere-pro.html
Best,
Kevin
I can attest to mercury working on both my MBPs 2007 and mid 2008 (8gigs of ram) but add a fast color correction effect on AVCHD or 7D footage and you gotta render - machines grind to a halt, footage not playable at all. Transcode to Prores first and you're golden.
Of course most people will get newer quad core machines but laptop wise apple doesn't have a 1Gig CUDA card for any MBP right?
Also, I have seen tests for people with fancy Quattro 4300fx cards ($1500) NS 6 OR 8 core machines where they turn on and off the hardware acceleration and didn't see much of a difference not a 10x better / $1500 difference. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
NJRonbo
Jun 22, 05:59 PM
Whaaaat?
Is this a case where Radio Shack is charging
$50 more than Apple just because they can?
Is this a case where Radio Shack is charging
$50 more than Apple just because they can?
Glideslope
Mar 31, 06:08 PM
John Gruber's take:
Can't say I disagree.
Exactly. Anyone who did not see this coming deserves what was planned years ago. Likeable, Trustworthy, Product. Google has none.
I laugh at all the Android users about to bend over. Enjoy :apple:
Can't say I disagree.
Exactly. Anyone who did not see this coming deserves what was planned years ago. Likeable, Trustworthy, Product. Google has none.
I laugh at all the Android users about to bend over. Enjoy :apple:
layte
Mar 31, 03:58 PM
First, I have a Dell Streak. Wanted to see what the fuss was about. Took a year for the official Froyo release to appear. Yeah, fragmentation exists.
(I appreciate Android on the Streak, but GOOD GOD does it feel like a laggy piece of software compared to my iPhone and iPad. It has widgets and tons of convenient apps for pirating software or games (no... I own ALL those ROMS)... but I digress.)
So, Android unifies. Google forces handset/tablet manufacturers to adopt a stock OS interface. How will they differentiate themselves? What incentive, beyond a free OS, will there be to creating "phone B" that looks just like "phone A". This is where Google will shoot itself in the foot. The less the carriers and handset manufacturers can customize, the less incentive they have to launch on Android. Heck, just emulate Android if you want the apps, right RIM?
Weren't there waves a few weeks about about Motorola wanting its own OS? I'd want to control my own destiny. This is creating a "walled garden" (Andy as caretaker) for the device manufacturers/carriers, and they're the ones that Google needs to be pushing the platform.
The thing is, if handset manufacturers want to crap up a handset with their own gunk they are free to do so still. They will have to wait longer than has been the case (is there an echo in here?) but it is still possible. This isn't Google completely shutting off access, just them making things a bit harder (some will think this is a good thing, some wont).
Perhaps they can differentiate with hardware, or custom applications (just not anything that messes with the base OS by the looks of things). Horrible skins need to die a death, even hardcore fandroids would agree with that.
(I appreciate Android on the Streak, but GOOD GOD does it feel like a laggy piece of software compared to my iPhone and iPad. It has widgets and tons of convenient apps for pirating software or games (no... I own ALL those ROMS)... but I digress.)
So, Android unifies. Google forces handset/tablet manufacturers to adopt a stock OS interface. How will they differentiate themselves? What incentive, beyond a free OS, will there be to creating "phone B" that looks just like "phone A". This is where Google will shoot itself in the foot. The less the carriers and handset manufacturers can customize, the less incentive they have to launch on Android. Heck, just emulate Android if you want the apps, right RIM?
Weren't there waves a few weeks about about Motorola wanting its own OS? I'd want to control my own destiny. This is creating a "walled garden" (Andy as caretaker) for the device manufacturers/carriers, and they're the ones that Google needs to be pushing the platform.
The thing is, if handset manufacturers want to crap up a handset with their own gunk they are free to do so still. They will have to wait longer than has been the case (is there an echo in here?) but it is still possible. This isn't Google completely shutting off access, just them making things a bit harder (some will think this is a good thing, some wont).
Perhaps they can differentiate with hardware, or custom applications (just not anything that messes with the base OS by the looks of things). Horrible skins need to die a death, even hardcore fandroids would agree with that.
dernhelm
Aug 7, 04:11 PM
Maybe not in a client type computer but it exists in Windows Server 2003 and it is called Volume Shadow Copy.
Of curse it doesn't look as nice !
You're the closest so far, except that it is by turns both not as sophisticated as a Snapshot, and in some sense more sophisticated. A snapshot allows you to "capture" the current state of a disk at a particular point in time - further new updates do not impact the snapshot. This assures a consistent backup as of a given point in time. This is not what Apple is doing here, as they are simply storing the old version of the file on the backup system.
However, in Time Machine, "snapshots" are not deliberate actions, they occur everytime something is changed. It would be tedious/near impossible to restore your entire disk back to a certain known good point using Time Machine - but that's a SysAdmin thing. It is almost simplicity itself to restore a given file or set of files back to what they were 30 minutes ago. And that is something that "everyman" needs a lot. If your choices are your current corrupt version, or the version as of the last snapshot, that is often a choice between bad and worse.
Of curse it doesn't look as nice !
You're the closest so far, except that it is by turns both not as sophisticated as a Snapshot, and in some sense more sophisticated. A snapshot allows you to "capture" the current state of a disk at a particular point in time - further new updates do not impact the snapshot. This assures a consistent backup as of a given point in time. This is not what Apple is doing here, as they are simply storing the old version of the file on the backup system.
However, in Time Machine, "snapshots" are not deliberate actions, they occur everytime something is changed. It would be tedious/near impossible to restore your entire disk back to a certain known good point using Time Machine - but that's a SysAdmin thing. It is almost simplicity itself to restore a given file or set of files back to what they were 30 minutes ago. And that is something that "everyman" needs a lot. If your choices are your current corrupt version, or the version as of the last snapshot, that is often a choice between bad and worse.
faroZ06
Apr 8, 12:36 AM
Sure there is a difference, but is it noticable? Is it worth the cost?
A Ferrari costs a lot more than a Ford Fiesta. It's better built and has a lot more power under the hood. But if all you're ever doing is driving at 20 mph, then it doesn't matter, the Fiesta has all the power you need and you'll save a pile of money. Now, you don't want to go rock bottom and buy a junker that might break down, but as long as it runs smoothly at 20 mph, any car will do the job.
You don't want ultra-cheap crappy cables that can develop loose connections or come poorly shielded, as that can cause dropouts. But neither do you need pure silver or oxygen-free shielding or whatever. Any HDMI cable will either fail outright or do the exact same job as any other for the given application.
Yeah, just get the cheapo HDMI cable. I'm not spending $50+ for some ripoff cable to play my H.264 lossy compressed "HD" videos.
I got two HDMI cables off eBay for $5 each :cool: and they're good.
I like Apple's approach on the iPad 2 vs my experience with the iPhone 4 - where I and 20+ of my closest friends packed the Reston Apple Store in order to see if we could score the iPhone 4 from that mornings delivery.
Can't you also get them from AT&T? Also, the Apple Store in Santa Monica never has a line for new iPhones or iPads for some reason. I guess they work fast?
A Ferrari costs a lot more than a Ford Fiesta. It's better built and has a lot more power under the hood. But if all you're ever doing is driving at 20 mph, then it doesn't matter, the Fiesta has all the power you need and you'll save a pile of money. Now, you don't want to go rock bottom and buy a junker that might break down, but as long as it runs smoothly at 20 mph, any car will do the job.
You don't want ultra-cheap crappy cables that can develop loose connections or come poorly shielded, as that can cause dropouts. But neither do you need pure silver or oxygen-free shielding or whatever. Any HDMI cable will either fail outright or do the exact same job as any other for the given application.
Yeah, just get the cheapo HDMI cable. I'm not spending $50+ for some ripoff cable to play my H.264 lossy compressed "HD" videos.
I got two HDMI cables off eBay for $5 each :cool: and they're good.
I like Apple's approach on the iPad 2 vs my experience with the iPhone 4 - where I and 20+ of my closest friends packed the Reston Apple Store in order to see if we could score the iPhone 4 from that mornings delivery.
Can't you also get them from AT&T? Also, the Apple Store in Santa Monica never has a line for new iPhones or iPads for some reason. I guess they work fast?
iliketyla
Mar 31, 07:05 PM
Precisely. I've been using HTC Android phones concurrently with my iPhones since I have multiple lines. I happen to like both platforms.
What the Android haters here fail to realize, is that they cannot act like adults and say I like this about my iPhone far better than Android.
Nooooo. They've got to preface it with something derogatory like "crappy Android" or worse. It shows their immaturity and inability to act intelligent. They reduce themselves to childish dolts. Idiots at best.
Maybe we can start a trend here!
As a former iPhone user who switched to Android and has been happy ever since, I will say that I was very happy with my iPhone, but my Android phone offers features that I couldn't imagine living without now.
Both iOS and Android are very nice operating systems, with their own strengths and weaknesses.
For me, Android works.
What the Android haters here fail to realize, is that they cannot act like adults and say I like this about my iPhone far better than Android.
Nooooo. They've got to preface it with something derogatory like "crappy Android" or worse. It shows their immaturity and inability to act intelligent. They reduce themselves to childish dolts. Idiots at best.
Maybe we can start a trend here!
As a former iPhone user who switched to Android and has been happy ever since, I will say that I was very happy with my iPhone, but my Android phone offers features that I couldn't imagine living without now.
Both iOS and Android are very nice operating systems, with their own strengths and weaknesses.
For me, Android works.
SWC
Aug 7, 07:36 PM
This is interesting; how do they figure that they can get the service to a mobile phone?
Discuss!
Cheers.
Quicktime. they have had mobile phone support for a while. since h.264 i beleive.
Discuss!
Cheers.
Quicktime. they have had mobile phone support for a while. since h.264 i beleive.
twoodcc
Aug 11, 09:35 PM
My point is, earlier you were saying that they only have 4 games and they sold 57M copies. If you look at that link, which is right from Polyphony themselves, you will see that if you only count the 4 main games, as you were eluding to, that only totals 46M.
let's see, my original post:
yes it has been out for awhile, but they still haven't released the 5th game yet (not including demos). so either way, there's only 4 versions of the game out. at over 57 million copies sold, i'd say they sold a fair few...
noticed i said, "not including demos". which all other versions are, except for the psp game. granted, the last demo, or prologue, is a PS3 greatest hits.
So, you don't count NFS? Ok then. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are really only comparing GT to 1 other console game; Forza. It is the only other console game of any similar type. But, using your own logic, is it fair to compare GT to Forza, since GT has been out much longer and has many more games in the series? I mean, if we don't get to compare GT to NFS because of that, then surely you shouldn't compare GT to Forza for the same reason.
well let's compare it to NFS then, shall we? NFS debuted in 1994, and has their 16th release scheduled for release about the same time as GT5. so almost double the amount of games, if you include the prologues, or demos. and on top of that, NFS isn't just PS3. and it's available on a pc as well.
is it still a fair comparison? even though they are different games, they are both racing games. but if we go off number of sales (since you seem to think b/c i mentioned it, it's the only thing i take into consideration) NFS: 15 games, available on some 10 platforms, if not more. and over 100 millon.
GT5: 8 titles, 3 of which are prologues (demos). debuted in 1997. only playstation. over 57 million.
i'd say GT5 stacks up very well with NFS, considering everything. again, just looking at sales here
I really like you're choice of quoting.
hey, nothing wrong with wikipedia. they have links there for reference. i mean, all anyone else is gonna do is google stuff. how is that better?
...of which about 1/3 of them are various Civics, Skylines and Imprezas.
that's still not the point. having that many cars adds to the game, and adds up in data on that one disk. i'm sure many players drive those same cars in real life
...ok, that one is good. That says something.
yes it does. GT5 is only on playstation. it has been on every version now, including the psp.
...that no one ever drove, because it couldn't even get up the hilly parts of some tracks. Total waste.
again, that's your opinion. there might be some that liked those things. i personally didn't see much use either though
...really? Oldest car and Largest guide?? REALLY?? Yikes.
with so many cars, and so many races, some need a guide. some races are very difficult.
Um, according to your OWN link, the car was cancelled. And really, that isn't surprising. It is a concept car, plain and simple. So again I ask, what REAL cars have ever ACTUALLY been made just to be in this game??
nice catch. i'd say that's a pretty recent cancellation. but i did see a video of one somewhere, so i believe they made one somewhere.
but again, it still is a real car. and the intention of producing 6 of these cars was for this game. that is clear.
let's see, my original post:
yes it has been out for awhile, but they still haven't released the 5th game yet (not including demos). so either way, there's only 4 versions of the game out. at over 57 million copies sold, i'd say they sold a fair few...
noticed i said, "not including demos". which all other versions are, except for the psp game. granted, the last demo, or prologue, is a PS3 greatest hits.
So, you don't count NFS? Ok then. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are really only comparing GT to 1 other console game; Forza. It is the only other console game of any similar type. But, using your own logic, is it fair to compare GT to Forza, since GT has been out much longer and has many more games in the series? I mean, if we don't get to compare GT to NFS because of that, then surely you shouldn't compare GT to Forza for the same reason.
well let's compare it to NFS then, shall we? NFS debuted in 1994, and has their 16th release scheduled for release about the same time as GT5. so almost double the amount of games, if you include the prologues, or demos. and on top of that, NFS isn't just PS3. and it's available on a pc as well.
is it still a fair comparison? even though they are different games, they are both racing games. but if we go off number of sales (since you seem to think b/c i mentioned it, it's the only thing i take into consideration) NFS: 15 games, available on some 10 platforms, if not more. and over 100 millon.
GT5: 8 titles, 3 of which are prologues (demos). debuted in 1997. only playstation. over 57 million.
i'd say GT5 stacks up very well with NFS, considering everything. again, just looking at sales here
I really like you're choice of quoting.
hey, nothing wrong with wikipedia. they have links there for reference. i mean, all anyone else is gonna do is google stuff. how is that better?
...of which about 1/3 of them are various Civics, Skylines and Imprezas.
that's still not the point. having that many cars adds to the game, and adds up in data on that one disk. i'm sure many players drive those same cars in real life
...ok, that one is good. That says something.
yes it does. GT5 is only on playstation. it has been on every version now, including the psp.
...that no one ever drove, because it couldn't even get up the hilly parts of some tracks. Total waste.
again, that's your opinion. there might be some that liked those things. i personally didn't see much use either though
...really? Oldest car and Largest guide?? REALLY?? Yikes.
with so many cars, and so many races, some need a guide. some races are very difficult.
Um, according to your OWN link, the car was cancelled. And really, that isn't surprising. It is a concept car, plain and simple. So again I ask, what REAL cars have ever ACTUALLY been made just to be in this game??
nice catch. i'd say that's a pretty recent cancellation. but i did see a video of one somewhere, so i believe they made one somewhere.
but again, it still is a real car. and the intention of producing 6 of these cars was for this game. that is clear.
JimEJr
Apr 27, 10:30 AM
Its not about being a criminal or paranoid. This data is for the sole purpose of marketers to sell us crap.
Well, I'm tired of seeing ads everywhere I turn. You can't go to the bathroom now without seeing a ad shoved in your face and its becoming tiresome.
Well, Fry could have added our iPads and our phones too. Its disgusting already how much advertising has infiltrated our lives. You can't even read a news story on the internet without an ad being being intrusively shoved in your face.
Well then shut your eyes and plug your ears...or kiss your content (aka what you DO want) good bye as those ads are what is paying for you to enjoy that news story you refer to and most anything else that is free or a lower cost than it would be without ads. You can't have it both ways. Want all bloggers, media, etc. to do everything without ads AND without a charge? You try running a biz that way...see how long you'll be able to pay your bills.
In reality, the more data advertisers have about you, the better they will be able to put forth ads that are much more relevant to you. If we're going to have ads, might as well have them be for something of genuine interest to each one of us.
Well, I'm tired of seeing ads everywhere I turn. You can't go to the bathroom now without seeing a ad shoved in your face and its becoming tiresome.
Well, Fry could have added our iPads and our phones too. Its disgusting already how much advertising has infiltrated our lives. You can't even read a news story on the internet without an ad being being intrusively shoved in your face.
Well then shut your eyes and plug your ears...or kiss your content (aka what you DO want) good bye as those ads are what is paying for you to enjoy that news story you refer to and most anything else that is free or a lower cost than it would be without ads. You can't have it both ways. Want all bloggers, media, etc. to do everything without ads AND without a charge? You try running a biz that way...see how long you'll be able to pay your bills.
In reality, the more data advertisers have about you, the better they will be able to put forth ads that are much more relevant to you. If we're going to have ads, might as well have them be for something of genuine interest to each one of us.
rtdunham
Aug 27, 10:07 AM
As far as "legalities" go, usually corporations do have to generally not take unsolicited ideas, commercials, marketing materials, etc. developed by the public. The reason for this is that they want to avoid being sued later on if they do something similar. ...the more obvious examples would be things where, for example, someone designs a new computer and sends it to Apple; Apple eventually releases something quite similar to it, and the person who sent in the design tries to sue them for taking their idea and not paying anything for it.-Zadillo
but wouldn't it be neat to see a computer maker have a website for submission of ideas: you type in your idea, and get a message that says, "IF we choose to use your idea, you'll receive $1 per unit; if you agree to those terms, hit the "SEND" button now."
Imagine all the 'puter features, (cheap lyric theft intended) that might be in today's units, if they incorporated ideas suggested on these forums alone in the past 5 yrs. It'd be fun to see someone compile a list. Here's a start: Ports on the FRONT of desktop units; easy-swap HD bays on laptops; built-in memory card readers; built-in iPod dock; etc.
Look at the stuff on YOUR desk: how much could be consolidated into the computer itself? Think about what you wish your computer could do that it can't do, now.
but wouldn't it be neat to see a computer maker have a website for submission of ideas: you type in your idea, and get a message that says, "IF we choose to use your idea, you'll receive $1 per unit; if you agree to those terms, hit the "SEND" button now."
Imagine all the 'puter features, (cheap lyric theft intended) that might be in today's units, if they incorporated ideas suggested on these forums alone in the past 5 yrs. It'd be fun to see someone compile a list. Here's a start: Ports on the FRONT of desktop units; easy-swap HD bays on laptops; built-in memory card readers; built-in iPod dock; etc.
Look at the stuff on YOUR desk: how much could be consolidated into the computer itself? Think about what you wish your computer could do that it can't do, now.
Joe2000
Aug 6, 06:08 AM
What about TV Show downloads in the UK? Pleeeeaaaase!!! :rolleyes:
Looking foward to these Mac Pros though, my Dad is definatley going to buy one. :D
Thanks, Joe.
Looking foward to these Mac Pros though, my Dad is definatley going to buy one. :D
Thanks, Joe.
Evangelion
Aug 17, 03:58 AM
But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
There were handful of benchmarks. If we disregard the non-universal apps, we get this:
Xeon is a lot faster in iMovie
In FCP it's a bit faster
in FileMaker it's A LOT faster
in Cinebench it's considerably faster
Are those really such a bad results? The apps that it was slower in (but not by much) were running through emulation, is that a fair comparison?
Looking at the other reviews around the net, it becomes quite obvious that apart from few apps, Mac Pro is considerably faster tham PowerMac. In compiling for example, it walks all over the G5
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
There were handful of benchmarks. If we disregard the non-universal apps, we get this:
Xeon is a lot faster in iMovie
In FCP it's a bit faster
in FileMaker it's A LOT faster
in Cinebench it's considerably faster
Are those really such a bad results? The apps that it was slower in (but not by much) were running through emulation, is that a fair comparison?
Looking at the other reviews around the net, it becomes quite obvious that apart from few apps, Mac Pro is considerably faster tham PowerMac. In compiling for example, it walks all over the G5
Object-X
Sep 19, 12:31 AM
1. It's Merom. Not Memrom, Menron, Memron or even L. Ron.
You forgot Mormon.
You forgot Mormon.
azentropy
Apr 6, 01:30 PM
Apple also sold about 100K iPad's - yesterday.
mustangs
Sep 19, 12:00 AM
I purchased my 1.83GHz Mac Book with 1GHz of RAM on Sep 07, and apple sent me an email that it was going to be shipped on the 18th. Today I got this email from Apple "
mwswami
Jul 21, 01:31 PM
I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
Hey Multimedia, just curious, I wonder what's your current (something you want to use for the next 1-2 years) idea of the ultimate machine wrt number of Cores, Memory, Storage, etc. And, how much are you willing to pay for it?
Hey Multimedia, just curious, I wonder what's your current (something you want to use for the next 1-2 years) idea of the ultimate machine wrt number of Cores, Memory, Storage, etc. And, how much are you willing to pay for it?
tirk
Apr 11, 11:44 AM
If it is going to be a 4g/LTE iPhone then this works for me. I have no complaints with my iPhone 4 so waiting another 4-6 months is fine with me.
80%* of potential purchasers won't have access to LTE for at least another year from then. Given that 3G was added only after it was widely available, why would Apple take such a risk with the huge numbers of June/July iPhone users coming to the end of their contracts for such a minority market?
[*made up statistic, but I bet it's not far wrong! :D ]
80%* of potential purchasers won't have access to LTE for at least another year from then. Given that 3G was added only after it was widely available, why would Apple take such a risk with the huge numbers of June/July iPhone users coming to the end of their contracts for such a minority market?
[*made up statistic, but I bet it's not far wrong! :D ]
No comments:
Post a Comment