twoodcc
Feb 8, 03:42 AM
congrats to lyzardking for 6 million points!
clientsiman
Mar 31, 12:56 PM
iCal looks really awful. I hope to change it again int he next developer preview.
mrkramer
Mar 18, 08:35 AM
You know it. I would even go so far as to say it's ridiculous! :rolleyes:
In full disclosure, I've had a borderline man-crush on Obama since he announced he was running for POTUS... but when I heard about this UN resolution, my heart just sank. Eight years of Bush "forcefully spreading the gospel of democracy 'round the world" idiocy and we appear to have learned nothing. Nothing. :(
this isn't forcefully spreading democracy like Bush did, the difference between here and Iraq is that the Iraqis weren't asking for us to come but the Libian rebels are. Plus we aren't sending in a ground force to occupy the country if we did that I would have a problem with it.
In full disclosure, I've had a borderline man-crush on Obama since he announced he was running for POTUS... but when I heard about this UN resolution, my heart just sank. Eight years of Bush "forcefully spreading the gospel of democracy 'round the world" idiocy and we appear to have learned nothing. Nothing. :(
this isn't forcefully spreading democracy like Bush did, the difference between here and Iraq is that the Iraqis weren't asking for us to come but the Libian rebels are. Plus we aren't sending in a ground force to occupy the country if we did that I would have a problem with it.
baryon
Mar 31, 11:57 AM
Ok folks!!! Now try to manage your favorites in "Favorites Bar"!!! Try to change their places and see what happen!!! Pure madness!!!:D:D
I'm not a developer, what happens?
I'm not a developer, what happens?
lordonuthin
Mar 23, 09:22 PM
Haha. I wanted the 2.66 octo but couldn't justify the price jump (and still somehow managed to justify the quad-to-octo jump, but that's another story). Of course my times tend to deviate, during the days it's just under 33 minutes but now and then a bit of Aperture work comes in and needs CPU attention.
I haven't noticed that bigadv units do not restart. Mine seem to restart just fine the few times I've shut FahCore down, continuing from the same frame. Does it affect the points awarded or so? Good thing I can usually bunch in the updates, last time it was a few software updates and a third HDD :rolleyes:
I wanted the top octo but couldn't justify it :D I had never had anything but the lowest Powermacs (G3 & G5) or, cough, Performa, so I splurged.
The bigadv units NEVER restart on my machine :mad: it only affects the points to the extent that I'm restarting from zero and not where I was at oh say 90 percent or something. I will work on consolidation as soon as I have my Victory Vegas (http://www.polarisindustries.com/en-us/Victory-Motorcycles/2010/Pages/Find-Your-Model.aspx) with new paint back together :p:p it's an 04 with silver goldish paint and a 1500 cc engine :cool:
I haven't noticed that bigadv units do not restart. Mine seem to restart just fine the few times I've shut FahCore down, continuing from the same frame. Does it affect the points awarded or so? Good thing I can usually bunch in the updates, last time it was a few software updates and a third HDD :rolleyes:
I wanted the top octo but couldn't justify it :D I had never had anything but the lowest Powermacs (G3 & G5) or, cough, Performa, so I splurged.
The bigadv units NEVER restart on my machine :mad: it only affects the points to the extent that I'm restarting from zero and not where I was at oh say 90 percent or something. I will work on consolidation as soon as I have my Victory Vegas (http://www.polarisindustries.com/en-us/Victory-Motorcycles/2010/Pages/Find-Your-Model.aspx) with new paint back together :p:p it's an 04 with silver goldish paint and a 1500 cc engine :cool:
Aeroflux
Mar 28, 03:53 PM
I stopped reading at "silky smooth 30fps". What the hell? Is this "silky smooth" for a timely epileptic? Talk about hype. I'm looking forward to the NGP more than anything else for portable gaming. I've been waiting for dual joysticks on a portable since playstation. Ironic, since Sony is the king of hype. Apple advertises games as part of their platform, yet doesn't have one accessory for gaming...and how many accessories for everything else? Screw that bipolar approach.
"Microsoft announced the Kinect would extend the life of the 360 by 5 years, and PS3 launched with the intention of a 10 year life span. "
This is just a misnomer for an era of 32x hardware to thrive in place of new consoles. It's killed console gaming for me. 30fps is a relic. It was mildly entertaining when, year after year, gamers defended it in light of shiny graphics. Now it's just embarassing.
Every now and then I rent a console game and end up setting it aside before beating it; because a nine foot screen and 30fps interactive media with a ton of screen tear does NOT mix well unless you include vomit and/or motion sickness. Then it's chunky goodness to the last dry heave.
"Microsoft announced the Kinect would extend the life of the 360 by 5 years, and PS3 launched with the intention of a 10 year life span. "
This is just a misnomer for an era of 32x hardware to thrive in place of new consoles. It's killed console gaming for me. 30fps is a relic. It was mildly entertaining when, year after year, gamers defended it in light of shiny graphics. Now it's just embarassing.
Every now and then I rent a console game and end up setting it aside before beating it; because a nine foot screen and 30fps interactive media with a ton of screen tear does NOT mix well unless you include vomit and/or motion sickness. Then it's chunky goodness to the last dry heave.
jxyama
Apr 6, 11:22 AM
actually, nevermind. i don't care anymore. you are clearly not reading what i've been posting anyway.
afrowq
Apr 20, 12:02 PM
Finally a Mac rumor instead of all those iDevice rumors!
what's the first letter in imac?
An all-in-one computer is just another consumer device. Bring on the Mac Pros
what's the first letter in imac?
An all-in-one computer is just another consumer device. Bring on the Mac Pros
ipodG8TR
Sep 7, 10:10 AM
When will the studios get a clue. I can rent movies almost anywhere for a couple dollars (only $1 at the grocery store vending machine with my debit card). So, why buy?
More convenient - I don't think so. It will take a decent amount of time to download.
Better quality - I doubt it. Don't expect much better than iTunes offers now.
More convenient - I don't think so. It will take a decent amount of time to download.
Better quality - I doubt it. Don't expect much better than iTunes offers now.
Tomorrow
Apr 20, 10:54 AM
I also hate to hear people moan about how inconvenient a standard transmission is during stop and go traffic; I mean it's not that bad
For most passenger cars in the U.S., an automatic transmission is standard - indeed, a manual transmission isn't even available for many (if not most) cars here.
As for being "not that bad," you might not think so; for many of us, there's a noticeable difference, one we can appreciate.
People are just too willing to sacrifice the fun of driving for convenience.
I used to think driving was fun, but that was many years ago. I absolutely loathe driving now. Whenever I go somewhere with my wife, she drives.
To me, driving is a necessary evil; if I'm at point A and I need to get to point B, and nobody else is going my way, then I'll drive; otherwise, I won't. I positively hate it, and I gain no joy whatsoever from it.
For most passenger cars in the U.S., an automatic transmission is standard - indeed, a manual transmission isn't even available for many (if not most) cars here.
As for being "not that bad," you might not think so; for many of us, there's a noticeable difference, one we can appreciate.
People are just too willing to sacrifice the fun of driving for convenience.
I used to think driving was fun, but that was many years ago. I absolutely loathe driving now. Whenever I go somewhere with my wife, she drives.
To me, driving is a necessary evil; if I'm at point A and I need to get to point B, and nobody else is going my way, then I'll drive; otherwise, I won't. I positively hate it, and I gain no joy whatsoever from it.
Lurchdubious
Nov 26, 06:14 PM
Lurchdubious, are you building a glasses case?:p
/ok, I'll stop now
ROTFL!!! :D Indeed I AM!
/ok, I'll stop now
ROTFL!!! :D Indeed I AM!
fall3n
Sep 1, 11:52 AM
I'm wondering if Apple would kill off the 17" if they did introduce a 23". I'm pretty sure now that the manufacturing cost difference between 17" and 20" is quite small.
I highly doubt they would killl it off. I think they'd drop the price on it which would make it even more desirable for standard consumers with a budget. Sort of a, why get the mini when I could just pay a bit more for the iMac 17" kind of thing.
I highly doubt they would killl it off. I think they'd drop the price on it which would make it even more desirable for standard consumers with a budget. Sort of a, why get the mini when I could just pay a bit more for the iMac 17" kind of thing.
Zelnaga
Feb 18, 03:20 PM
No major additions, just an iPad, TrackPad and a canvas of SJ (yes am a fanboi lol)
Apologies images taken using iPhone in low light
<SNIP>
Sweet. What stand do you have for your iPad?
Apologies images taken using iPhone in low light
<SNIP>
Sweet. What stand do you have for your iPad?
cmaier
Apr 2, 07:36 PM
this commercial makes ipad seemed like it's only for kids.
A lot of kids you know looking at CAT scans?
A lot of kids you know looking at CAT scans?
milo
Nov 16, 10:45 AM
31% is a little disappointing for 2x the number of cores.
But you're missing the fact that the 8 cores are at a slower clock speed. If you compare 4 versus 8 at the same clock, you're looking at a respectable 47% improvement.
I almost NEVER use handbrake from an optical DVD. That makes no sense to me. Why would you do that? :confused:
To rip DVD's. Why add additional, unnecessary steps?
Apple REALLY needs to get apps like quicktime and iTunes to run on any number of cores. Even if they don't use multiple cores on a single file, it should be a piece of cake to get them to process multiple files at once. If I want to convert eight files, it should just run each conversion at once on a separate core - it's the equivalent of running eight copies of the app (which shouldn't be necessary).
I'd love to see them run Logic Pro - it supports four cores finally, and I'd like to know if they just upped it to four or if it goes beyond that.
But you're missing the fact that the 8 cores are at a slower clock speed. If you compare 4 versus 8 at the same clock, you're looking at a respectable 47% improvement.
I almost NEVER use handbrake from an optical DVD. That makes no sense to me. Why would you do that? :confused:
To rip DVD's. Why add additional, unnecessary steps?
Apple REALLY needs to get apps like quicktime and iTunes to run on any number of cores. Even if they don't use multiple cores on a single file, it should be a piece of cake to get them to process multiple files at once. If I want to convert eight files, it should just run each conversion at once on a separate core - it's the equivalent of running eight copies of the app (which shouldn't be necessary).
I'd love to see them run Logic Pro - it supports four cores finally, and I'd like to know if they just upped it to four or if it goes beyond that.
bigpics
Mar 24, 12:57 PM
Dude, I'm sorry to inform you that what you're saying is an outright lie, and there are guys from the Lossless Compression Clan, called "Apple Lossless codec", "FLAC", and "APE", standing with heavy cluebats in their hands, ready to perform a painful reality sync on anyone thinking compression ALWAYS degrades quality.
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
BLUELION
Apr 3, 01:46 PM
Apple is Apple and the king of the hill with respect to the tablet sector. Android is attempting to catch up, and therefore not on top.
The reason this ad works so well is because it is not in your face, trying to give you a spec list of what it can do. People already know what is under the hood and what its hardware can do, the point of the ad is to entice, to get those who are on other platforms to come on over.
This ad is about subtle confidence and that is why it is a home-run. Android, well they can keep trying with their used car salesman approach.
:apple:
This ad will never work. People want ads that make them feel like teenage boys. I know this from Android ads. Steel and lasers, Apple. Steel and lasers!
The reason this ad works so well is because it is not in your face, trying to give you a spec list of what it can do. People already know what is under the hood and what its hardware can do, the point of the ad is to entice, to get those who are on other platforms to come on over.
This ad is about subtle confidence and that is why it is a home-run. Android, well they can keep trying with their used car salesman approach.
:apple:
This ad will never work. People want ads that make them feel like teenage boys. I know this from Android ads. Steel and lasers, Apple. Steel and lasers!
DrFrankTM
Sep 1, 01:45 PM
No way would I pay an extra $500 for an 8% faster machine and a slighly larger display, when for that money I can go with the 20" and buy a second widescreen 20" display and have a HUGE viewable area.
The 23" is going to have to be a LOT closer to the 20" in order for it to sell. I'm thinking $1899 or $1999, or else it will have to be decked out with extra RAM, HD space, or CPU speed.
I don't really know about the ideal price difference, but for some people, it wouldn't matter much. If you want a system with a lot of screen space, then you can get two 1920x1200 monitors. Sure, it will cost you, but if you need the space, then you'll go for the 23-inch. Also, to watch movies, a big screen is better than two small ones. It all depends on what you need the computer for...
The 23" is going to have to be a LOT closer to the 20" in order for it to sell. I'm thinking $1899 or $1999, or else it will have to be decked out with extra RAM, HD space, or CPU speed.
I don't really know about the ideal price difference, but for some people, it wouldn't matter much. If you want a system with a lot of screen space, then you can get two 1920x1200 monitors. Sure, it will cost you, but if you need the space, then you'll go for the 23-inch. Also, to watch movies, a big screen is better than two small ones. It all depends on what you need the computer for...
Leoff
Nov 27, 03:30 PM
I don't understand this. Apple has carried a 20" monitor as their low end for two years. Why offer something even smaller after so long? This seems like a step backwards. Why not reduce the 20" to $399 and lower the price of the other two? Dell is putting major price pressure on Apple with their monitors; though they are not as good looking, the price has no doubt won over many would be buyers...not me of course. :p
Well, see... there's this little thing called market analysis and listening to the people you sell things to. I highly doubt Apple was sitting around going "we need to release something new because its been months. I know! How about a different monitor size!"
Why not reduce the 20" to $399? Why should they when they seem to be selling just fine at where they are?
Dell is putting IMAGINED price pressure on Apple with their monitors. Selling cheaper crap will cost you less.
Well, see... there's this little thing called market analysis and listening to the people you sell things to. I highly doubt Apple was sitting around going "we need to release something new because its been months. I know! How about a different monitor size!"
Why not reduce the 20" to $399? Why should they when they seem to be selling just fine at where they are?
Dell is putting IMAGINED price pressure on Apple with their monitors. Selling cheaper crap will cost you less.
macman2790
Oct 23, 07:45 PM
if you are gonna wait - macworld 07 will be the big update.
i hope you're right. this is what i'm waiting for. What do you think's in store for mwsf?
i hope you're right. this is what i'm waiting for. What do you think's in store for mwsf?
Chris Bangle
Sep 5, 03:13 AM
2pm GMT
corywoolf
Sep 6, 03:23 PM
Lowest line? The mini and macbook still both have slower processors than the MBP's.
Apple's cheapest computer= Mac Mini. Also, I was comparing that to my less then 6 month old 1.83 Ghz MBP.
Apple's cheapest computer= Mac Mini. Also, I was comparing that to my less then 6 month old 1.83 Ghz MBP.
andrew050703
Nov 15, 08:04 AM
Gosh, I'll be able to email and type Word docs SO much faster!! :p
yup, and my webpages will load in the blink of an eye... definitely worth whatever apple will charge. ;)
seriously though, how hard is it to get a program to multi-thread? (if thats the right term; being a complete programming novice, i've no idea)
yup, and my webpages will load in the blink of an eye... definitely worth whatever apple will charge. ;)
seriously though, how hard is it to get a program to multi-thread? (if thats the right term; being a complete programming novice, i've no idea)
jonharris200
Sep 1, 04:00 PM
"Thin is in". I like that slogan.