jholzner
Aug 24, 06:51 PM
As a previous poster pointed out, I don't think that conroe is compatible with the current Yonah procs. Only Merom is. Conroe requires a MB redesign.
tablo13
Sep 21, 04:40 PM
I have the dermaSHOT case too, and I too find the top button a little hard to press. Kinda like I have to feel around for the button.
I also have a $1 one from China, not as thick as the Incipio, but the buttons feel good
Would you say the dermaSHOT is better?
Do you people know any good cheap(few bucks) TPU cases?
I also have a $1 one from China, not as thick as the Incipio, but the buttons feel good
Would you say the dermaSHOT is better?
Do you people know any good cheap(few bucks) TPU cases?
Lord Blackadder
Mar 4, 02:27 PM
In many ways, it's shameful today that we think that 60 or even 70mpg is somehow remarkable for a family car. :(
It certainly could be significantly higher. Public taste, laziness on the part of manufacturers and other things have all conspired to keep the bar set low on fuel economy.
In the US, there's one key reason why small cars don't sell (above and beyond the reasons I already listed), and that is that popular wisdom holds that you will die in a small car when someone in a large SUV or truck hits you. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy as people buy big cars because they don't feel safe in small ones, with the result that they become part of the "problem". Ultimately it's down to selfishness. Apparently people would rather kill someone else in an accident than risk being killed themselves.
It's idiotic, but this "wisdom" will only be unlearned slowly. Smaller cars are much safer now then they once were - safer than trucks and SUVs.
By way of a postscript, it's worth pointing out that today's safety and environmental regulations make it more difficult to make a car frugal, small and light than it was when Alec Issigonis designed the Mini. Also, aluminum construction (in smaller production cars such as the A2) remains nearly as rare and expensive as it was in the 50s.
But not the brand image... that could perhaps be the biggest stumbling block of all, it certainly is in Europe anyway.
True, and that's a shame, because brand image often matters than a car's actual merits. If the new Jetta is a turd, people will still buy it because the VW badge has cachet here that GM does not, at least in the realm of small cars.
I'm not going to stand up too much for GM, I've never held a high opinion of most of their products, but I have reasonably read good reviews of the Cruze and I hope they bring the diesel here.
Have to say my preference is for saloons... occasionally an estate (particularly A4 & A6 allroads, also 159 Sportwagons, that sort of thing), hatches (the bigger ones anyway) & estates can/tend to be a little boomy in my experience. Saloons also often have better body rigidity too.
The sedan body is the default in the US. Hatches and wagons are much rarer and therefore more interesting. In Europe it's really the other way around. When you're talking about mid-size or larger cars, sedans do generally have better proportions in my opinion (with a few exceptions - I like 5-Series wagon, and the 1990s Subaru Legacy wagon). Hatches look good on small cars though. The Focus, for example, looked stupid as a sedan but great as a hatch.
I do agree with you about the noise though - my Forester's rear suspension is sometimes very audible in the cabin, especially with the seats down. A few years before I bought my Forester, I used to mock it as the ugliest thing on the road, but I've gotten used to it and while it's never going to be attractive it does have a certain pleasing purposefulness in its proportions. Even though a lesbian couple I know call it my lesbian wagon. :rolleyes::D
It certainly could be significantly higher. Public taste, laziness on the part of manufacturers and other things have all conspired to keep the bar set low on fuel economy.
In the US, there's one key reason why small cars don't sell (above and beyond the reasons I already listed), and that is that popular wisdom holds that you will die in a small car when someone in a large SUV or truck hits you. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy as people buy big cars because they don't feel safe in small ones, with the result that they become part of the "problem". Ultimately it's down to selfishness. Apparently people would rather kill someone else in an accident than risk being killed themselves.
It's idiotic, but this "wisdom" will only be unlearned slowly. Smaller cars are much safer now then they once were - safer than trucks and SUVs.
By way of a postscript, it's worth pointing out that today's safety and environmental regulations make it more difficult to make a car frugal, small and light than it was when Alec Issigonis designed the Mini. Also, aluminum construction (in smaller production cars such as the A2) remains nearly as rare and expensive as it was in the 50s.
But not the brand image... that could perhaps be the biggest stumbling block of all, it certainly is in Europe anyway.
True, and that's a shame, because brand image often matters than a car's actual merits. If the new Jetta is a turd, people will still buy it because the VW badge has cachet here that GM does not, at least in the realm of small cars.
I'm not going to stand up too much for GM, I've never held a high opinion of most of their products, but I have reasonably read good reviews of the Cruze and I hope they bring the diesel here.
Have to say my preference is for saloons... occasionally an estate (particularly A4 & A6 allroads, also 159 Sportwagons, that sort of thing), hatches (the bigger ones anyway) & estates can/tend to be a little boomy in my experience. Saloons also often have better body rigidity too.
The sedan body is the default in the US. Hatches and wagons are much rarer and therefore more interesting. In Europe it's really the other way around. When you're talking about mid-size or larger cars, sedans do generally have better proportions in my opinion (with a few exceptions - I like 5-Series wagon, and the 1990s Subaru Legacy wagon). Hatches look good on small cars though. The Focus, for example, looked stupid as a sedan but great as a hatch.
I do agree with you about the noise though - my Forester's rear suspension is sometimes very audible in the cabin, especially with the seats down. A few years before I bought my Forester, I used to mock it as the ugliest thing on the road, but I've gotten used to it and while it's never going to be attractive it does have a certain pleasing purposefulness in its proportions. Even though a lesbian couple I know call it my lesbian wagon. :rolleyes::D
mambodancer
Jul 18, 09:14 AM
The assumption is that the movies will be downloadable. It's entirely possible that Apple may follow a model like netflix. Have an online DB of thousands of movies that you can review online, read reviews and member comments, and then rent the movie and have it shipped to you like Netflix and Blockbuster. Return it when you have watched it. Order and buy brand new and used DVD's. Charge a monthly subscription service. Maybe Apple will buy Netflix?
Additionally, if Apple does provide the option of at once delivery via downloads then I don't think they need to provide DVD quality as a download (though resolution options and a price structure to match would be nice-being able to watch HD-DVD on my Mac would be great)*.
I like the $9.99 price point for movie downloads that you can keep if they are DVD quality and I'm sure Steve will continue to fight for this. This isn't much different than what the Columbia DVD movie club offers now when you consider the number of movies that you get - for their member offer you can buy 7 DVD's for an average price of $3.90 each. Movies sell from Columbia starting at $14.95 to $19.95 and they always have some kind of special offer-buy one at regular club prices, get your next DVD for 50% off.
This would be another step toward dropping cable TV for me altogether. The $45 a month I'm paying to rent TV and movies from Comcast is a great incentive to cancel cable. The quality of cable downloads (record to VCR) isn't so great and if I'm downloading TV I still have to deal with commercials. I'd much rather do the "movie and TV on demand" thing through my computer.
And yes, I finally got rid of my TV, CD player, amps, tape drive, DVD player, VCR and entertainment console in favor of listening and watching through my computer system. I love not having that hugh piece of furniture crammed full of electronics and cabling in my living room!
Additionally, if Apple does provide the option of at once delivery via downloads then I don't think they need to provide DVD quality as a download (though resolution options and a price structure to match would be nice-being able to watch HD-DVD on my Mac would be great)*.
I like the $9.99 price point for movie downloads that you can keep if they are DVD quality and I'm sure Steve will continue to fight for this. This isn't much different than what the Columbia DVD movie club offers now when you consider the number of movies that you get - for their member offer you can buy 7 DVD's for an average price of $3.90 each. Movies sell from Columbia starting at $14.95 to $19.95 and they always have some kind of special offer-buy one at regular club prices, get your next DVD for 50% off.
This would be another step toward dropping cable TV for me altogether. The $45 a month I'm paying to rent TV and movies from Comcast is a great incentive to cancel cable. The quality of cable downloads (record to VCR) isn't so great and if I'm downloading TV I still have to deal with commercials. I'd much rather do the "movie and TV on demand" thing through my computer.
And yes, I finally got rid of my TV, CD player, amps, tape drive, DVD player, VCR and entertainment console in favor of listening and watching through my computer system. I love not having that hugh piece of furniture crammed full of electronics and cabling in my living room!
Evangelion
Aug 29, 11:40 AM
people, we need a reality-check here! all this talk of sales grinding to a halt is complete bs. what does merom have that yonah doesn't? it has 5-20% better performance clock-for-clock and it's 64bit. that's it, in the end. are those really such features that not having those would doom the mini? no they are not! mini is about being cheap. and using yonah is a good way of doing just that. if you want more performance, apple has other products for you.
what would i like to see? lower price (maybe -100 across the board) and maybe dvd-burner on all models. add to that a new cpu, and you are all set.
posting from my nokia 770, so no caps
what would i like to see? lower price (maybe -100 across the board) and maybe dvd-burner on all models. add to that a new cpu, and you are all set.
posting from my nokia 770, so no caps
mtbdudex
Apr 21, 11:13 AM
Time to hide my iPhone file from the wife:rolleyes:
Seriously......privacy issues seem all over the place in this digital age....here is another example.
I guess we need a law disclosing if such and such device tracks you and needs to disclose that to you clearly via a warning label/other....
Seriously......privacy issues seem all over the place in this digital age....here is another example.
I guess we need a law disclosing if such and such device tracks you and needs to disclose that to you clearly via a warning label/other....
EagerDragon
Aug 25, 04:56 AM
I hope they add a second Ethernet and Firewire to it.
theBB
Jul 19, 04:21 PM
Which is exactly why the past few weeks have been a great time to load up on Apple stock. Apple has been increasing computer sales with transitional computers. The "real" machines aren't out yet.
In other words, Apple growth won't be slowing down any time soon. In fact, it should probably accelerate over the next 12 months.
When the "real" machines are out, Vista will be out as well. Unless Leopard has revolutionary improvements, the difference between Windows and OSX+iLife would be much less than that it is today. I would still appreciate the UNIX under the hood, but I doubt most consumers care. If Mac sales or market share starts to come down a bit due to fewer switchers, the share price could easily crash.
In other words, Apple growth won't be slowing down any time soon. In fact, it should probably accelerate over the next 12 months.
When the "real" machines are out, Vista will be out as well. Unless Leopard has revolutionary improvements, the difference between Windows and OSX+iLife would be much less than that it is today. I would still appreciate the UNIX under the hood, but I doubt most consumers care. If Mac sales or market share starts to come down a bit due to fewer switchers, the share price could easily crash.
heffemonkeyman
Sep 6, 08:41 PM
I rather just buy a dvd for $10-20. I'm not downloading anything from the apple store for that price.
What if it was HD?
I think you're right. A lot of people will feel the same way.
That's way they're not going to try and compete with retail DVDs and Netflix or PPV. Apple is going to create a new market with HD downloads before HDDVD/Blu-Ray movies are widely available...
:)
What if it was HD?
I think you're right. A lot of people will feel the same way.
That's way they're not going to try and compete with retail DVDs and Netflix or PPV. Apple is going to create a new market with HD downloads before HDDVD/Blu-Ray movies are widely available...
:)
BenRoethig
Aug 29, 11:45 AM
I would like to see a "media center" with a basic built-in TV-tuner so I could use it as a TIVO. It cant be that hard to add a TV-tuner...
I'm thinking something similar. 3.5x8.5x8.5. Basically a larger MacMini with a 3.5" hard drive, dedicated graphics, and video chipset similar to the Miglia TV Max.
I'm thinking something similar. 3.5x8.5x8.5. Basically a larger MacMini with a 3.5" hard drive, dedicated graphics, and video chipset similar to the Miglia TV Max.
CRAZYBUBBA
Jan 11, 07:59 PM
added a line to the article...
"- It will be called the MacBook Air"
arn
worst-name-ever. i hope that it's anything but "macbook air"
"- It will be called the MacBook Air"
arn
worst-name-ever. i hope that it's anything but "macbook air"
devinci99
Mar 22, 04:15 PM
I do think it's possible that Apple might re-invent the classic.
A price drop and some minor update (such as wifi, bluetooth capabilities, ios capable) might happen. I think updating the classic's internal's and functionality might be feasible. But I doubt they will touch the physical appearance of it.
But re-inventing the classic would defeat the purpose of calling it 'classic'.
The Ipod Touch is their outlet for innovations now. Though, I wonder when the touch, would simple be called the iPod (drop the touch from the name).
A price drop and some minor update (such as wifi, bluetooth capabilities, ios capable) might happen. I think updating the classic's internal's and functionality might be feasible. But I doubt they will touch the physical appearance of it.
But re-inventing the classic would defeat the purpose of calling it 'classic'.
The Ipod Touch is their outlet for innovations now. Though, I wonder when the touch, would simple be called the iPod (drop the touch from the name).
AutumnSkyline
Oct 23, 02:33 PM
I don't know if this update is imminent. apple.com store still shows macbooks and mbp as shipping within 24 hours....
then they lie!!!!!!!!!!!!:)
then they lie!!!!!!!!!!!!:)
macidiot
Jul 19, 04:33 PM
When the "real" machines are out, Vista will be out as well. Unless Leopard has revolutionary improvements, the difference between Windows and OSX+iLife would be much less than that it is today. I would still appreciate the UNIX under the hood, but I doubt most consumers care. If Mac sales or market share starts to come down a bit due to fewer switchers, the share price could easily crash.
Vista vs. Leopard is a moot point. There is enough pent up demand for high end desktops to fuel growth for some time. Switchers aren't material in this market. Besides, desktop buyers aren't waiting for Leopard, they are waiting for universal binaries from Adobe.
Vista will have zero near term effect. The simple truth is that you won't see widespread adoption of Vista for at least 12-18 months. And that is assuming Vista actually ships when it is supposed to. Which is no sure thing.
As for the consumer, what they care about is stability and security. imo, that is what is getting switchers. Your right that they don't care how it's being done. However, Vista will be far more secure than xp when it comes out. At least for a month or so. It will take at least a few weeks for good malware to come out for it...
Vista vs. Leopard is a moot point. There is enough pent up demand for high end desktops to fuel growth for some time. Switchers aren't material in this market. Besides, desktop buyers aren't waiting for Leopard, they are waiting for universal binaries from Adobe.
Vista will have zero near term effect. The simple truth is that you won't see widespread adoption of Vista for at least 12-18 months. And that is assuming Vista actually ships when it is supposed to. Which is no sure thing.
As for the consumer, what they care about is stability and security. imo, that is what is getting switchers. Your right that they don't care how it's being done. However, Vista will be far more secure than xp when it comes out. At least for a month or so. It will take at least a few weeks for good malware to come out for it...
AppliedVisual
Nov 16, 11:24 AM
One question about 512MB vs 1 & 2 GB mod bandwidth. If the Mac comes with two 512MB mods installed in Riser A and I buy two 2GB modules to put into Riser B - total 5GB, will the slower bandwidth (or whatever it's called) of the two 512MB mods slowing down the faster 2GB mods be offset by having RAM installed in both risers rather than pulling the 512's and only having two 2GB mods installed in Riser A only - total 4GB? The difference of 1GB of RAM doesn't seem like that part would matter if the 512 mods slow everything down.
Since the RAM all runs at the same speed and timings, no. The 512MB half-gate modules won't slow down the other RAM. However, any data going through the 512MB modules will see a very slight improvement in latency, but the upper ceiling for bandwidth out of those modules will be about half of what you would get out of a 1 or 2 GB module.
Personally, I would want all my RAM to be consistant...
Since the RAM all runs at the same speed and timings, no. The 512MB half-gate modules won't slow down the other RAM. However, any data going through the 512MB modules will see a very slight improvement in latency, but the upper ceiling for bandwidth out of those modules will be about half of what you would get out of a 1 or 2 GB module.
Personally, I would want all my RAM to be consistant...
!� V �!
Apr 26, 03:03 PM
does apple compare themselves with other brand using the term "apps"
If they do I'd think you'd have to say it's a generic term since apple is calling the stuff run on other devices apps as well.
I remember the abbreviation "App" being used long before :apple: related it to its "App Store." Nothing new to see here, just :apple: trying to brand something that was used generically in the 90's.
If they do I'd think you'd have to say it's a generic term since apple is calling the stuff run on other devices apps as well.
I remember the abbreviation "App" being used long before :apple: related it to its "App Store." Nothing new to see here, just :apple: trying to brand something that was used generically in the 90's.
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. ;)
doberman211
Mar 22, 10:25 PM
Curious to see some statistics on this.
yes indeed. i have looked at some high quality SSD drives and bought one from other world computing for fairly low price but is fastest SSD i know of, and the guaranteed lifetime data storage expectancy reaches well over 200 years and the read/write rates remain constant for roughly the first twenty. i think he had it backwards. HDDs lose their magnetic charge after a while and your data fades away and gets corrupted.
yes indeed. i have looked at some high quality SSD drives and bought one from other world computing for fairly low price but is fastest SSD i know of, and the guaranteed lifetime data storage expectancy reaches well over 200 years and the read/write rates remain constant for roughly the first twenty. i think he had it backwards. HDDs lose their magnetic charge after a while and your data fades away and gets corrupted.
newagemac
May 3, 09:02 AM
But my iPhone is far more limited than my first Windows PC in that regard. Even with Windows 95 I could go from one app to another while letting the other on load in the background. iOS freezes everything. If I want a video to upload on Facebook, I have no choice but to keep the app open until it's done. On my PC, I can start the upload and then move on to other things while the process is completing.
I find moving to non-true multitasking as a step backward, not a step forward. As you said, out systems capabilites are able to do so much more. I can be playing a computer game, hit the Windows key, and open a media player and never see a drop in performance. Why limit your computer to one task at a time? Kind of defeats the point of multi-core processors.
Uh, this comment is entirely wrong. With iOS, you can download something and move to another app and it will continue downloading in the background. The multitasking APIs have all the obvious backgrounding tasks covered and will likely include more if needed. Basically the goal is to allow background tasks when needed and when not needed let the app suspend and release resources to the apps you actually need. This method in iOS has proven to work far better than traditional operating systems like Mac OS X and Windows. That's why they are bringing it "Back to the Mac OS". The best parts of what they developed in iOS are being added in Lion.
I think most people's problem is that they mistakenly viewed iOS as inferior in every way to Mac OS X but in many ways it is cutting edge and far better than OS X and Windows have ever been. The way iOS multitasking works is the reason very powerful and memory hungry apps like iMove and GarageBand for iPad work so surprisingly well on such a limited memory device. The apps get to use a much larger percentage of the CPU, GPU, and RAM than they do on traditional OSes under normal usage where you have multiple apps open.
Right now I have a bunch of tabs open in Safari on my Mac and it's consuming a little over 1GB of RAM and lots of CPU. If I switch to Photoshop, Safari is still going to be using up all that RAM and CPU I really need for Photoshop when I don't plan on using Safari again until later today. And I don't want to shut it down because I have a bunch things in these tabs that I want to get back to later today including partially typed forum replies, halfway read articles, etc. On the iPad, Safari would suspend and release the RAM and CPU to my currently used RAM/CPU hungry app. That's what they need to bring to Lion.
I find moving to non-true multitasking as a step backward, not a step forward. As you said, out systems capabilites are able to do so much more. I can be playing a computer game, hit the Windows key, and open a media player and never see a drop in performance. Why limit your computer to one task at a time? Kind of defeats the point of multi-core processors.
Uh, this comment is entirely wrong. With iOS, you can download something and move to another app and it will continue downloading in the background. The multitasking APIs have all the obvious backgrounding tasks covered and will likely include more if needed. Basically the goal is to allow background tasks when needed and when not needed let the app suspend and release resources to the apps you actually need. This method in iOS has proven to work far better than traditional operating systems like Mac OS X and Windows. That's why they are bringing it "Back to the Mac OS". The best parts of what they developed in iOS are being added in Lion.
I think most people's problem is that they mistakenly viewed iOS as inferior in every way to Mac OS X but in many ways it is cutting edge and far better than OS X and Windows have ever been. The way iOS multitasking works is the reason very powerful and memory hungry apps like iMove and GarageBand for iPad work so surprisingly well on such a limited memory device. The apps get to use a much larger percentage of the CPU, GPU, and RAM than they do on traditional OSes under normal usage where you have multiple apps open.
Right now I have a bunch of tabs open in Safari on my Mac and it's consuming a little over 1GB of RAM and lots of CPU. If I switch to Photoshop, Safari is still going to be using up all that RAM and CPU I really need for Photoshop when I don't plan on using Safari again until later today. And I don't want to shut it down because I have a bunch things in these tabs that I want to get back to later today including partially typed forum replies, halfway read articles, etc. On the iPad, Safari would suspend and release the RAM and CPU to my currently used RAM/CPU hungry app. That's what they need to bring to Lion.
vand0576
Sep 1, 01:46 PM
One more thing... they'll change the name from iMac to Mac, bringing a perfect symmetry to their product line-up:
Mac
Mac Pro
MacBook
MacBook Pro
symmetry, shmimmetry.
I liked things better when the names were all over the board and unique.
Mac
Mac Pro
MacBook
MacBook Pro
symmetry, shmimmetry.
I liked things better when the names were all over the board and unique.
wrldwzrd89
Nov 23, 01:46 PM
I am now the proud owner of a 4th gen iPod touch. :D
Macula
Jan 2, 07:24 AM
There WILL be an Apple phone at MWSF
-- HOWEVER --
it will only have modest music playback capabilities. If you want a good music player AND a good phone then you will have to buy a Nano AND an Apple Phone.
-- HOWEVER --
it will only have modest music playback capabilities. If you want a good music player AND a good phone then you will have to buy a Nano AND an Apple Phone.
iJohnHenry
Apr 9, 04:59 PM
I know how to drive a manual, but it has been ages since last time I have been in one
Same here.
I've had a flat-head Ford (stearing column shift), Chevy Cavalier, Porsche, Chevy Corvair Corsa :eek:, with some autos in between, and ever since.
When you drive to/from Toronto all the time, standard just makes no sense, now that autos are much more efficient.
Same here.
I've had a flat-head Ford (stearing column shift), Chevy Cavalier, Porsche, Chevy Corvair Corsa :eek:, with some autos in between, and ever since.
When you drive to/from Toronto all the time, standard just makes no sense, now that autos are much more efficient.
SuperCachetes
Mar 18, 07:18 AM
Here's a video on the latest developments in Lybia. The "No Fly Zone" really means, "No Fly for Quadaffi plus Yes Bombing for US and UK".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42143060#42143060
Is it me, or does war seem kind of rediculous now. :cool:
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. :(
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42143060#42143060
Is it me, or does war seem kind of rediculous now. :cool:
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. :(
