Spoony
Apr 26, 02:52 PM
Here is what makes me think it's not generic and apple would/should win.
There have been other online stores that sell computer programs/applications before apple created the "app store" None of them used the word App in their store name.
Examples:
GetJar
MobileRated
Cellmania
Apple launches a store just like these but better and called the store "App Store"
July 10, 2009 Apple's "App Store launches". Pre this no online stores used the term "app"
Post apples launch other phone makers/OS systems start to scramble.
App Catalog = Palm
App World = RIM
Amazon AppStore = Amazon
Stores that didn't ride apples coattails
Android Market = Android
Ovi Store = Nokia
Windows Phone Marketplace = Microsoft.
If "app store" was so obvioius and generic why did no one call their store "App store" until apple did? This is like everyone that argues that the iphone is so generic with it's icons and screen. I mean so obvious. No it's not obvioius.
If it was obvious Netjar, Mobilerated, Steam etc.. would just say "App Store" instead of some other random word.
Even the unauthorized iphone Store Cydia doesn't use the word app in their store name. "Unauthorized App Store" "Rogue App Store"
App Store is apple.
Even Wikipedia's serach term "app store" goes to the apple "app store" page. if want other onlilne phone stores you need to go to the disambiguation section.
There have been other online stores that sell computer programs/applications before apple created the "app store" None of them used the word App in their store name.
Examples:
GetJar
MobileRated
Cellmania
Apple launches a store just like these but better and called the store "App Store"
July 10, 2009 Apple's "App Store launches". Pre this no online stores used the term "app"
Post apples launch other phone makers/OS systems start to scramble.
App Catalog = Palm
App World = RIM
Amazon AppStore = Amazon
Stores that didn't ride apples coattails
Android Market = Android
Ovi Store = Nokia
Windows Phone Marketplace = Microsoft.
If "app store" was so obvioius and generic why did no one call their store "App store" until apple did? This is like everyone that argues that the iphone is so generic with it's icons and screen. I mean so obvious. No it's not obvioius.
If it was obvious Netjar, Mobilerated, Steam etc.. would just say "App Store" instead of some other random word.
Even the unauthorized iphone Store Cydia doesn't use the word app in their store name. "Unauthorized App Store" "Rogue App Store"
App Store is apple.
Even Wikipedia's serach term "app store" goes to the apple "app store" page. if want other onlilne phone stores you need to go to the disambiguation section.
kadajawi
Sep 7, 03:36 AM
Well I posted it in another thread however I just built a PC with some amazing specs for under $500. It was a P4 3ghz, 2gb ram, 250GB HD, 256MB GPU, DVDR, bluetooth, wifi. The kicker is it's a Shuttle so it's tiny, not much bigger than a mini, and it's made of aluminum. The thing is very Mac like. And being able to build it so cost effectively, really ticked me off.
Because no matter what I'd get on the Apple side it would either cost much, much more or it would be hobbled in some way (GPU, monitor, etc.). In the end you have to realize that as a Mac user you're paying more for a brand and for the ability to run OS X. That's fine, provided you can find a system which meets your needs.
(yeah it's late and I'm cranky) :P
Yes, I was about to build one with a Athlon 64 3000+ (doesn't eat up electricity like the P4... and with RM Clock or so you can reduce power consumption quite a bit additionally. The default voltages are usually far above whats needed, both AMDs I've built run perfectly with 1.1V (standard is 1.4 to 1.45), unfortunately it isn't possible to lover the voltage further), 512 MB RAM, 160 GB HD, onboard graphics, DVDR, in a 9x27.5x35 cm enclosure. Price with Windows: around 400 �. Bluetooth and WiFi is lacking, but shouldn't add too much. In comparison the Mac Mini Core Solo was 600 � at that time. I'd consider both systems comparable... Mini has front row, BT and WiFi, PC has better connectivity (especially on the display side), 100 gig more HD, DVD writer, card reader. Quite a price difference to me.
Lack of OS X + iLife, the upgrade to Core Duo, student discount and the printer promo made me chose the Mac Mini.
Because no matter what I'd get on the Apple side it would either cost much, much more or it would be hobbled in some way (GPU, monitor, etc.). In the end you have to realize that as a Mac user you're paying more for a brand and for the ability to run OS X. That's fine, provided you can find a system which meets your needs.
(yeah it's late and I'm cranky) :P
Yes, I was about to build one with a Athlon 64 3000+ (doesn't eat up electricity like the P4... and with RM Clock or so you can reduce power consumption quite a bit additionally. The default voltages are usually far above whats needed, both AMDs I've built run perfectly with 1.1V (standard is 1.4 to 1.45), unfortunately it isn't possible to lover the voltage further), 512 MB RAM, 160 GB HD, onboard graphics, DVDR, in a 9x27.5x35 cm enclosure. Price with Windows: around 400 �. Bluetooth and WiFi is lacking, but shouldn't add too much. In comparison the Mac Mini Core Solo was 600 � at that time. I'd consider both systems comparable... Mini has front row, BT and WiFi, PC has better connectivity (especially on the display side), 100 gig more HD, DVD writer, card reader. Quite a price difference to me.
Lack of OS X + iLife, the upgrade to Core Duo, student discount and the printer promo made me chose the Mac Mini.
Baseline
Nov 15, 12:21 PM
OK, I'm hardly a programmer (PHP doesn't really count) but that's the exact same description that I've heard applied to the description of what it takes to vectorize a program (i.e. make it Alti-Vec optimized) [that and the process of making loops that can be unrolled]. So I've got to ask, is there some difference between those two concepts? If not, it sure seems like we would have a lot more multi-core enabled apps out there already...
I'm glad you admit that PHP doesn't count :)
But to answer your question: There are situations where vectorization and multi-threading/processing are both applicable. However, vectorization *tends* to work on chunks of data that are not dependent on each other, but simliar. Say, you have four integers, and you need to double them all. You could vectorize that, and it'd be a lot cheaper that spawning additional threads to do each multiplication.
However, take Word for example. I don't know how it works, but let's assume that the main editor is one thread, and the real-time spell/grammar checker is a separate thread. Those two tasks are not at all the same, so you couldn't vectorize that, but you could very easily multi-thread it.
To bring it back to my cake example, let's say you had to crack four eggs. It would make sense to vectorize that, crack all four at the same time. But then let's say you have to crack one egg, pour 500ml of milk, and measure 250g of flour. You wouldn't vectorize that, you'd multi-thread it.
I'm glad you admit that PHP doesn't count :)
But to answer your question: There are situations where vectorization and multi-threading/processing are both applicable. However, vectorization *tends* to work on chunks of data that are not dependent on each other, but simliar. Say, you have four integers, and you need to double them all. You could vectorize that, and it'd be a lot cheaper that spawning additional threads to do each multiplication.
However, take Word for example. I don't know how it works, but let's assume that the main editor is one thread, and the real-time spell/grammar checker is a separate thread. Those two tasks are not at all the same, so you couldn't vectorize that, but you could very easily multi-thread it.
To bring it back to my cake example, let's say you had to crack four eggs. It would make sense to vectorize that, crack all four at the same time. But then let's say you have to crack one egg, pour 500ml of milk, and measure 250g of flour. You wouldn't vectorize that, you'd multi-thread it.
Nym
Nov 30, 08:53 AM
Why not put wheels on a boat?
AHAHAH!
That was nice :D
You guys are always speculating about what it will or will not have, I mean, you could all be right, but then.. you could all be wrong, I'm not betting on anything till I see the real thing :)
And there's one problem, is iTv supposed to be international or a USA only service? If it's supposed to be international Apple has to watch those "features", what's the point of people in Europe buying an iTv if half the "features" are not supported outside the US? :eek:
However, Apple has always surprised us, iTv is gonna be great IMO, is there another way? :)
AHAHAH!
That was nice :D
You guys are always speculating about what it will or will not have, I mean, you could all be right, but then.. you could all be wrong, I'm not betting on anything till I see the real thing :)
And there's one problem, is iTv supposed to be international or a USA only service? If it's supposed to be international Apple has to watch those "features", what's the point of people in Europe buying an iTv if half the "features" are not supported outside the US? :eek:
However, Apple has always surprised us, iTv is gonna be great IMO, is there another way? :)
a456
Sep 1, 02:09 PM
Definitely not. There's too much branding in the iMac name. For consumers, it means ease and simplicity with power and looks. Additionally, just calling it Mac would be confusing for everyone, especially when they ask what kind of mac you own?
"I own a Mac."
"Yeah? What kind?"
"A Mac."
"I know. You just said that. But what kind of mac?"
"A Mac. You know. A Mac."
"I'm going to kill you now, sir."
Heh that's a great name for the next iMac, an aMac. No longer the 'information' Mac but the 'all' Mac, the Mac that does everything to go with the new aPod.
"I own a Mac."
"Yeah? What kind?"
"A Mac."
"I know. You just said that. But what kind of mac?"
"A Mac. You know. A Mac."
"I'm going to kill you now, sir."
Heh that's a great name for the next iMac, an aMac. No longer the 'information' Mac but the 'all' Mac, the Mac that does everything to go with the new aPod.
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.
johnnyham
Jun 24, 10:52 AM
As is the norm for most rumored Apple products... it's been done before to some extent. In this case, a company in Valencia, CA, humorously called Troll Touch (http://www.trolltouch.com) (wonder if they hang out on forums much?) performs touchscreen upgrades to virtually any Mac product. As I understand it, the majority of their customers are businesses (http://www.tomsguide.com/us/macworld-touchscreen-mac,news-417.html) that use touchscreen iMacs as point of sale machines, equipped with the [/url="http://www.xsilva.com"]Lightspeed POS[/url] software. And no, POS does not stand for what you call your '79 Ford Pinto.
I could see there being a strong market for systems like these, especially considering the markup Apple could put on them. I've worked heavily with Radiant POS systems which run XP Embedded and used a few other XP Pro software packs and CE based devices - most of which crashed on a weekly basis. When running a retail/restaurant business, the last thing you want is to lost precious time and customers due to a faulty system. Macs have a great reputation with not crashing, so I can see why a smart business owner would see the advantage of investing in a few of these.
As for incorporating iOS in there, I could see it being a very light "embedded" version of OS X that would be great for running on smaller, less powerful computers - much like XP Embedded. Kind of like what it is already, except capable of being run on other hardware platforms.
And finally, I could see an iMac-based Surface-like Mac. You know, tabletop computing and all. Not as much market, but pretty dang cool, even if Microsoft has done it before. We all know Apple's always trying to one-up Microsoft.
Be as it may though, I couldn't see Apple pumping out a consumer-level touchscreen iMac. For anything other than light, 15 minute usage, it would be a real pain. I couldn't see many non-business owners buying one. I'm putting my money (har har) on seeing an Apple produced iMac POS either running OS X or a slightly beefed up form of iOS. What do you think about the name OS X$?
I could see there being a strong market for systems like these, especially considering the markup Apple could put on them. I've worked heavily with Radiant POS systems which run XP Embedded and used a few other XP Pro software packs and CE based devices - most of which crashed on a weekly basis. When running a retail/restaurant business, the last thing you want is to lost precious time and customers due to a faulty system. Macs have a great reputation with not crashing, so I can see why a smart business owner would see the advantage of investing in a few of these.
As for incorporating iOS in there, I could see it being a very light "embedded" version of OS X that would be great for running on smaller, less powerful computers - much like XP Embedded. Kind of like what it is already, except capable of being run on other hardware platforms.
And finally, I could see an iMac-based Surface-like Mac. You know, tabletop computing and all. Not as much market, but pretty dang cool, even if Microsoft has done it before. We all know Apple's always trying to one-up Microsoft.
Be as it may though, I couldn't see Apple pumping out a consumer-level touchscreen iMac. For anything other than light, 15 minute usage, it would be a real pain. I couldn't see many non-business owners buying one. I'm putting my money (har har) on seeing an Apple produced iMac POS either running OS X or a slightly beefed up form of iOS. What do you think about the name OS X$?
inkswamp
Apr 3, 03:27 AM
Contrast that ad to this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxZ6NQnIPkU
... and the message Apple is sending becomes very clear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxZ6NQnIPkU
... and the message Apple is sending becomes very clear.
Bodhi395
Jun 22, 12:47 PM
I don't see this happening in the next year or two, and certainly not in the next 60 days.
I agree with some others that the implementation of a dual operating system would be clunky and I can't imagine Apple making such a mash up. Apple is all about simplicity, and I don't see this happening until they can make a simple user interface.
I also think the current design of the iMac would be horrible for a touch interface since its vertical, and a touch interface iMac would need to be flat or slightly slanted.
I agree with some others that the implementation of a dual operating system would be clunky and I can't imagine Apple making such a mash up. Apple is all about simplicity, and I don't see this happening until they can make a simple user interface.
I also think the current design of the iMac would be horrible for a touch interface since its vertical, and a touch interface iMac would need to be flat or slightly slanted.
xterm
Jul 14, 09:21 AM
As purely a data storage format, obviously Blu-ray has the potential to store more data than HD DVD.
However, as someone who has been following the whole BD vs. HD DVD consumer video format war, and as someone who has bought an HD DVD player (and, until recently, had a BD video player on order), at this (albeit early) stage of the game, HD DVD is the superior video format.
HD DVD has 30gb dual layer discs available (almost all the latest video releases on HD DVD are 30gb dual layer.) There are many more titles available for HD DVD right now (probably because it's been out longer and the discs themselves are easier to manufacture.) HD DVD uses a more efficient codec (Microsoft's VC-1, which is akin to H.264, in that it's much much more efficient than MPEG-2.) HD DVD titles have either Dolby Digital Plus (a higher bit-rate multichannel audio codec) and Dolby TruHD (a lossless multichannel audio codec).
BD only has 25gb single layer discs available now. Apparently the 50gb dual layer discs are hard to manufacture and the yields are not ready for prime time. No BD retail video discs are above 25gb single layer. No timetable for 50gb discs has been announced. The video is MPEG-2, meaning it takes up more space on the disc. And, the most recent BD releases all suffer from more MPEG artifacts than any HD DVD releases. BD audio is either standard Dolby Digital or space consuming uncompressed PCM audio (which sucks up even more disc space, leaving even less for video.)
The current Samsung BD player actually has the same (Broadcom) chip that the current Toshiba HD DVD player has in terms of outputing video... and it only outputs 1080i. The Samsung player tacks on another (Faroudja) chip to deinterlace it, so it outputs 1080p (so BD can say "we output 1080p!"), except, that chip apparently stinks and makes the picture somewhat soft. In reality, any HDTV worth its salt can easily deinterlace 1080i signals, so the whole "we output 1080p" is a false advantage anyway. Both BD and HD DVD discs store the video as 1080p, by the way.
So, what you have, on the video front, BD has a smaller capacity disk with less efficient video and audio codecs (that look and sound worse). And it is TWICE the price ($500 vs. $1000). And has less titles. And is late.
If you read any reports on BD video quality vs. HD DVD video quality on boards like AVSforum.com, HD DVD beats BD hands down.
Who knows how this video format war will shake out, but Blu-ray is way behind right now.
-Terry
Good post, sums up the current situation very nicely.
Given that dual layer 50GB blu-ray discs cant even be produced yet, i think the 200GB claim is complete vaporware.
I hope HD-DVD wins this war soon, as it is out of the gates first, and thus far a far superior format. If Blu-Ray were to give up now, i dont think many people would be sad. One format is better for everyone.
However, as someone who has been following the whole BD vs. HD DVD consumer video format war, and as someone who has bought an HD DVD player (and, until recently, had a BD video player on order), at this (albeit early) stage of the game, HD DVD is the superior video format.
HD DVD has 30gb dual layer discs available (almost all the latest video releases on HD DVD are 30gb dual layer.) There are many more titles available for HD DVD right now (probably because it's been out longer and the discs themselves are easier to manufacture.) HD DVD uses a more efficient codec (Microsoft's VC-1, which is akin to H.264, in that it's much much more efficient than MPEG-2.) HD DVD titles have either Dolby Digital Plus (a higher bit-rate multichannel audio codec) and Dolby TruHD (a lossless multichannel audio codec).
BD only has 25gb single layer discs available now. Apparently the 50gb dual layer discs are hard to manufacture and the yields are not ready for prime time. No BD retail video discs are above 25gb single layer. No timetable for 50gb discs has been announced. The video is MPEG-2, meaning it takes up more space on the disc. And, the most recent BD releases all suffer from more MPEG artifacts than any HD DVD releases. BD audio is either standard Dolby Digital or space consuming uncompressed PCM audio (which sucks up even more disc space, leaving even less for video.)
The current Samsung BD player actually has the same (Broadcom) chip that the current Toshiba HD DVD player has in terms of outputing video... and it only outputs 1080i. The Samsung player tacks on another (Faroudja) chip to deinterlace it, so it outputs 1080p (so BD can say "we output 1080p!"), except, that chip apparently stinks and makes the picture somewhat soft. In reality, any HDTV worth its salt can easily deinterlace 1080i signals, so the whole "we output 1080p" is a false advantage anyway. Both BD and HD DVD discs store the video as 1080p, by the way.
So, what you have, on the video front, BD has a smaller capacity disk with less efficient video and audio codecs (that look and sound worse). And it is TWICE the price ($500 vs. $1000). And has less titles. And is late.
If you read any reports on BD video quality vs. HD DVD video quality on boards like AVSforum.com, HD DVD beats BD hands down.
Who knows how this video format war will shake out, but Blu-ray is way behind right now.
-Terry
Good post, sums up the current situation very nicely.
Given that dual layer 50GB blu-ray discs cant even be produced yet, i think the 200GB claim is complete vaporware.
I hope HD-DVD wins this war soon, as it is out of the gates first, and thus far a far superior format. If Blu-Ray were to give up now, i dont think many people would be sad. One format is better for everyone.
carlgo
Dec 30, 11:01 AM
... the Apple iCARus
People would complain about not being able to drive it in hot weather and having to buy expensive Apple iWax.
People would complain about not being able to drive it in hot weather and having to buy expensive Apple iWax.
wordoflife
Nov 26, 09:36 AM
How open minded of you...
Let's be honest, at least it wasn't a ....
http://www.ultimatehandyman.co.uk/safe2.jpg
a safe.
Last purchase: iTunes Giftcard
http://images.apple.com/itunes/gifts/images/hero20090909.jpg
Let's be honest, at least it wasn't a ....
http://www.ultimatehandyman.co.uk/safe2.jpg
a safe.
Last purchase: iTunes Giftcard
http://images.apple.com/itunes/gifts/images/hero20090909.jpg
celticpride678
Apr 1, 11:02 PM
Use the dev version instead. A lot more stable than the beta one.
Which is kind of ironic.
Google is likely going to be updating the dev build of Chrome to work with Lion has they have been doing over the past month, rather than the stable or beta builds.
Which is kind of ironic.
Google is likely going to be updating the dev build of Chrome to work with Lion has they have been doing over the past month, rather than the stable or beta builds.
babyj
Nov 29, 06:11 PM
Whilst I'm not Microsofts biggest fan, their Media Centre is pretty good, actually its a lot more than pretty good - even I'm tempted. Once you've got Media Centre running on your PC, you can hook up a �200 Xbox 360 to access all the content (music, video, digital tv etc). The PVR side of Media Centre is excellent as well.
If the iTV is going to cost �100, it will need to do something pretty special to be a success - everything that Microsoft offerings can do at the very least.
If the iTV is going to cost �100, it will need to do something pretty special to be a success - everything that Microsoft offerings can do at the very least.
BRLawyer
Jul 19, 04:58 PM
The great numbers shown today just prove that this is the perfect moment to bury MS once and for all in the OS war...OS X is by far the best system, and Longsight is still more than 6 months away...Microsoft is doomed.
milo
Aug 29, 12:31 PM
ALL desktop machines......
Apple posted their 3rd Quarter 2006 financial results today.
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060719164004.shtml
That was before the Pro shipped, it's a safe bet since it's released desktop numbers have gone up. And that's just one quarter, I doubt desktop numbers have been on the decline for the last twelve months.
Apple posted their 3rd Quarter 2006 financial results today.
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060719164004.shtml
That was before the Pro shipped, it's a safe bet since it's released desktop numbers have gone up. And that's just one quarter, I doubt desktop numbers have been on the decline for the last twelve months.
swingerofbirch
Jul 19, 06:39 PM
I didn't hear the entire conference call--did anyone ask about the virtual slave labor they've got going on in China?
It's easy to have good numbers when it's someone else's belt your tightening!
It's easy to have good numbers when it's someone else's belt your tightening!
AndrewR23
Apr 10, 02:33 PM
My first car was a shift so yup I had to learn. My girlfriend is being taught by me right now too :)
SeaFox
Dec 27, 11:15 PM
Ok, I don�t know what a slingbox is� and I thought it was going to stream or operate like a TiVo, where it downloads while you are asleep, so it would need a harddrive.
TiVo doesn't download your shows over the internet, it records them off the cable TV or satellite receiver. The only reason it requires an internet connection is to get programming schedules and verify you're paying your monthly fee.
Also, I�m not sure what you mean by TV? Do you mean a CRT with an aspect of 4:3? And, I would assume you don�t mean a flat panel LCD or Plasma,
Why not? They are all TV's. There is nothing about the term television that confines it to analog tube sets. If your Plasma/LCD has an over the air tuner or any sort, it is a TV. If it doesn't, it's a monitor.
...which now outsells tube tvs?
Do you have a source for that statement?
And when you download from the iTunes store this does go to a harddrive? So you think I�m going to buy both a new computer and the iTV, and pay $20 to download a few movies?
Apple thinks you are.
My point about price fixing was a wild hope that Apple might step in with iDish and offer a service without all the commercials
Nobody is going to offer TV without commercials. People seriously underestimate the cost of production and distribution of content.
The bandwidth limitation will be an issue if iTV wants to go past a download service.
Remember that songs/movies you buy from Apple are supposed to be yours, if they go to a streaming media service they become like a rental service in effect, as you have to maintain your relationship with Apple to keep viewing the content.
TiVo doesn't download your shows over the internet, it records them off the cable TV or satellite receiver. The only reason it requires an internet connection is to get programming schedules and verify you're paying your monthly fee.
Also, I�m not sure what you mean by TV? Do you mean a CRT with an aspect of 4:3? And, I would assume you don�t mean a flat panel LCD or Plasma,
Why not? They are all TV's. There is nothing about the term television that confines it to analog tube sets. If your Plasma/LCD has an over the air tuner or any sort, it is a TV. If it doesn't, it's a monitor.
...which now outsells tube tvs?
Do you have a source for that statement?
And when you download from the iTunes store this does go to a harddrive? So you think I�m going to buy both a new computer and the iTV, and pay $20 to download a few movies?
Apple thinks you are.
My point about price fixing was a wild hope that Apple might step in with iDish and offer a service without all the commercials
Nobody is going to offer TV without commercials. People seriously underestimate the cost of production and distribution of content.
The bandwidth limitation will be an issue if iTV wants to go past a download service.
Remember that songs/movies you buy from Apple are supposed to be yours, if they go to a streaming media service they become like a rental service in effect, as you have to maintain your relationship with Apple to keep viewing the content.
fun173
Feb 8, 07:43 PM
..........its my favorite color!
Gorgeous, love the color :)
Gorgeous, love the color :)
jellomizer
Oct 23, 11:29 AM
i'd like to see what's inside the new MBP's, though i already bought my MBP a couple weeks ago with no regrets.. i'd still like to see what those who are waiting will get for their hard earned patience
Well we get the feeling of getting the best system for a while. If you got the old MBP while I am sure you will be happy with it for a long time. It is just nice to have a system where they don't introduce a new one for about 6 months.
But for myself who is waiting it is more about waiting for a Generation 2 which I promiced myself, when the MBP first came out. I would have origionally bought a MBP if a few months ago they just increased the speed to 2.33 ghz. I was just waiting for one more processor upgrade. But now with all the rumors I just can't get myself to get one until it has a Core 2 Dou or better in it.
Well we get the feeling of getting the best system for a while. If you got the old MBP while I am sure you will be happy with it for a long time. It is just nice to have a system where they don't introduce a new one for about 6 months.
But for myself who is waiting it is more about waiting for a Generation 2 which I promiced myself, when the MBP first came out. I would have origionally bought a MBP if a few months ago they just increased the speed to 2.33 ghz. I was just waiting for one more processor upgrade. But now with all the rumors I just can't get myself to get one until it has a Core 2 Dou or better in it.
Multimedia
Nov 20, 01:58 PM
I think the number or cores will finally level off for a while once 8 core machines
become mainstream.Mainstream? I doubt any 8+ core users will be mainstream outside of commercial use.The next goal will be production refinements like 45 nm production for greater energy efficiency.I'll be surprised if that won't lead to a 16-core offering about a year from now or next winter 2008 at the latest. We are about to go from 4 to 8 in little over a year and a half to begin with. So I would guestimate the graduation from 8 to 16 will be in less time than it was from 4 to 8. So i would say that would not be a leveling off.Software developers will need to re-train or hire new software engineers who know how to take advantage of multi-core architecture.Well I'm still into the idea that multi-tasking can be just as big a driver of the need for more cores as multi-threaded within each. So I'm not sure we need to wait for software developers to "catch up". I know I'm not alone when I say I could use 16 cores in a Mac Pro right now with the existing base of software that already exists.The big question for those who must have the newest, most powerful system will be how much RAM they'll need to take advantage of the new architecture.I know that the primary applications I could use all this power for do not use much ram at all. So this specification may vary a lot among users.There are quite a few audio/video production professionals wondering how all this
will help to improve their workflow capabilties.Wondering? I'm pretty sure most are not wondering - more like eagerly anticipating due to KNOWING it will improve workflow tremendously.
become mainstream.Mainstream? I doubt any 8+ core users will be mainstream outside of commercial use.The next goal will be production refinements like 45 nm production for greater energy efficiency.I'll be surprised if that won't lead to a 16-core offering about a year from now or next winter 2008 at the latest. We are about to go from 4 to 8 in little over a year and a half to begin with. So I would guestimate the graduation from 8 to 16 will be in less time than it was from 4 to 8. So i would say that would not be a leveling off.Software developers will need to re-train or hire new software engineers who know how to take advantage of multi-core architecture.Well I'm still into the idea that multi-tasking can be just as big a driver of the need for more cores as multi-threaded within each. So I'm not sure we need to wait for software developers to "catch up". I know I'm not alone when I say I could use 16 cores in a Mac Pro right now with the existing base of software that already exists.The big question for those who must have the newest, most powerful system will be how much RAM they'll need to take advantage of the new architecture.I know that the primary applications I could use all this power for do not use much ram at all. So this specification may vary a lot among users.There are quite a few audio/video production professionals wondering how all this
will help to improve their workflow capabilties.Wondering? I'm pretty sure most are not wondering - more like eagerly anticipating due to KNOWING it will improve workflow tremendously.
galstaph
Jul 13, 10:32 PM
imagine the data you could put onto those disks though!
rezenclowd3
Jan 6, 12:13 AM
I also agree with the generally expensive cost of owning a used BMW.
I searched long and hard for my E30, and with over $14k poured into it by the last 3 owners as of last year when the work was done, I picked it up at the right time. However mine was a special case due to the engine+tranny swap.
I wouldn't trust an E36 (91-99) much under $10k. The e30 is cheap to maintain as well as easy to work on, but due to age, if completely stock, be prepared to start pouring money into it to make it a dd again.
Audi, I wouldn't touch used, even though they are damn cool cars, same with Mercs.
Much is luck finding a good DD BMW as well as proper knowledge and inspections.
Good luck finding one that you are happy with. If you get a bad feeling, or feel that the seller is less than 110% honest, just run.
On a side note, the previous owner of my E30 that I posted on page 1 just called and offered to buy it back, and offered to do a trade + cash for his much newer e9033i (if I understood him correctly). I need to take the e30 out AutoXing first to decide...still, will give him first dibs once I decide to depart with this classic car. I think I would have to get rid of it for an E30 M3 though ;-)
I searched long and hard for my E30, and with over $14k poured into it by the last 3 owners as of last year when the work was done, I picked it up at the right time. However mine was a special case due to the engine+tranny swap.
I wouldn't trust an E36 (91-99) much under $10k. The e30 is cheap to maintain as well as easy to work on, but due to age, if completely stock, be prepared to start pouring money into it to make it a dd again.
Audi, I wouldn't touch used, even though they are damn cool cars, same with Mercs.
Much is luck finding a good DD BMW as well as proper knowledge and inspections.
Good luck finding one that you are happy with. If you get a bad feeling, or feel that the seller is less than 110% honest, just run.
On a side note, the previous owner of my E30 that I posted on page 1 just called and offered to buy it back, and offered to do a trade + cash for his much newer e9033i (if I understood him correctly). I need to take the e30 out AutoXing first to decide...still, will give him first dibs once I decide to depart with this classic car. I think I would have to get rid of it for an E30 M3 though ;-)
No comments:
Post a Comment