lordonuthin
Jan 6, 10:43 PM
mc68k
i'll be at 8 digits, not too bad. but it's really just a #. things might be changing for me for the worse WU-wise temporarily
We can't keep this pace up all the time, I will probably be forced to do the same in the summer.
great news! glad we are passing some teams!
congrats! yeah my numbers might be down a lil also in the next couple of weeks it's looking like
Hopefully we can pass another team in about 30 days or so, we'll see if we can pick up some steam from new folders.
i'll be at 8 digits, not too bad. but it's really just a #. things might be changing for me for the worse WU-wise temporarily
We can't keep this pace up all the time, I will probably be forced to do the same in the summer.
great news! glad we are passing some teams!
congrats! yeah my numbers might be down a lil also in the next couple of weeks it's looking like
Hopefully we can pass another team in about 30 days or so, we'll see if we can pick up some steam from new folders.
TheFlashGuy
Jun 22, 04:28 PM
To paraphrase - "It's just a giant iPad!"
Carl Spackler
Nov 29, 03:46 PM
With HDMI, they'd have to be shooting higher than 480p. I'd say they'd go all out with 1080p, why not?
I was pleased and surprised to see no s-video out. They're clearly aiming for a product that's designed to stick around for a while. If we're going to see blu-ray Macs, and how can we not, iTV will have to be able to handle 1080p content.
I was pleased and surprised to see no s-video out. They're clearly aiming for a product that's designed to stick around for a while. If we're going to see blu-ray Macs, and how can we not, iTV will have to be able to handle 1080p content.
vitaflo
Nov 28, 11:15 AM
Microsoft lost billions on the Xbox and likely to lose hundreds of millions on their Zune attempt. iPod sales have been profitable for Apple since their introduction. How one measures success in this industry can't always be marketshare.
Given that the Xbox's market share was only about 20%, you probably can't use market share as a measure either.
Given that the Xbox's market share was only about 20%, you probably can't use market share as a measure either.
YS2003
Oct 23, 04:32 PM
If this update is for 15", it does make sense. I think 15" was the first intel Mac, followed by 17" and MB.
AppliedVisual
Oct 23, 11:25 AM
Hey, if there's a rumor every single week that upgraded macbooks/mbps, it will eventually be true! :D :D :D
When it finally does come true, MR will announce it snidely: "Apple announces upgraded notebooks today, as predicted..." and link back to the one rumor (of dozens, I think) that was accurate.
Of course... That's the way a lot of this "inside" info works. There were several rumor sites claiming updated MBP systems at Photokina. For the sake of not flaming one only to flame another, the claims made by most of these sites mysteriously vanished by about day 2 of Photokina. They made a huge deal over it and then no retractions or anything, they just pulled the articles from their sites as if it had never existed. AppleInsider did this, but they must have actually got real insider info because they pulled their little tidbit about it the day before Apple's Photokina event (Aperture update). So someone must have tipped them off that no notebook update was happening.
When it finally does come true, MR will announce it snidely: "Apple announces upgraded notebooks today, as predicted..." and link back to the one rumor (of dozens, I think) that was accurate.
Of course... That's the way a lot of this "inside" info works. There were several rumor sites claiming updated MBP systems at Photokina. For the sake of not flaming one only to flame another, the claims made by most of these sites mysteriously vanished by about day 2 of Photokina. They made a huge deal over it and then no retractions or anything, they just pulled the articles from their sites as if it had never existed. AppleInsider did this, but they must have actually got real insider info because they pulled their little tidbit about it the day before Apple's Photokina event (Aperture update). So someone must have tipped them off that no notebook update was happening.
zedsdead
Jan 13, 04:03 PM
Apple will NOT do that, however, remember the collapsing port patent filed by Apple?
Apple is supposed to be building an Ultra-Portable. Ethernet takes up space. I seriously doubt it will be in the Macbook Air or whatever apple decides to call it. Wifi will be enough. This laptop is not ment to be a main computer.
Apple is supposed to be building an Ultra-Portable. Ethernet takes up space. I seriously doubt it will be in the Macbook Air or whatever apple decides to call it. Wifi will be enough. This laptop is not ment to be a main computer.
razzmatazz
Aug 6, 09:41 PM
I became a hard core Mac user after Panther was released. I was wondering if Apple took stabs at Microsoft when they were introducing Panther. :confused:
CEAbiscuit
Jan 5, 09:57 AM
Do you have any idea if it is possible to get such a feature working on non-intel machines (e.g powerbook G4)?
iscroll2
http://iscroll2.sourceforge.net/ - sometimes a little clugey, but it works...
iscroll2
http://iscroll2.sourceforge.net/ - sometimes a little clugey, but it works...
thefunkymunky
Aug 7, 08:12 AM
Man, thats not enough.... we need dual Nvidia mobile GPUs with SLI...just like Alienware has! (Each with 512MB, for a total of 1GB video ram!)
Imagine trying to keep those puppies cool.
Imagine trying to keep those puppies cool.
rstansby
Sep 14, 11:48 AM
Does Consumer Reports stop recommending automobile purchases? Because you know if there is an issue with a car, the manufacturer will issue a recall. If you are affected, you have to take it into a dealer where it will be fixed. The onus is on the owner of the car, for crying out loud! The auto manufacturers should go house to house providing the fix for free to all cars, whether their owners report a problem or not!
That is precisely what auto manufacturers do. They send a letter to every owner, and fix the problem, whether or not the owner has reported it.
That is precisely what auto manufacturers do. They send a letter to every owner, and fix the problem, whether or not the owner has reported it.
ffakr
Nov 26, 09:29 PM
Ah, I see... But then again, you have more config options if you talk to one of Apple's business consultants and you can configure an Xserve with no drives if you'd like. Not sure what else the prior cluster node configurations had though, I guess I was unaware of their existence -- never saw them on the site, but I didn't really look.
I wasn't aware you could buy an XServe with no drives. It's odd for vendors to ship devices that can't be bench tested as is (unless Apple remote boots them on the line).
One of my big complaints with the XServe is that you don't get empty drive sleds if you don't order Apple drives. Apple ships covers for the un-used drives and you don't get the drive sleds unless you buy an expensive module from Apple.
Another complaint, Apple uses SMART but they don't support SMART on drives other than those that ship in XServes. The drives have to have Apple approved firmware. We bought 80GB modules and upgraded to nicer 300GB models (cheaper OEM even with a spare on the shelf compared to Apple's 250s) and the XServe won't read the SMART data from the drives.
The whole point of the XServe Cluster Node was to leave the frills out, like the drive bays and drives, so that you can get the most bang for the lowest buck. If Apple does go back to a cluster node, they'd likely drop the dual PowerSupplies also since a cluster node can go off line without pulling down a cluster.
A few bucks doesn't seem like much until you start pricing 40 or 100 or even 1000 compute nodes and then $300ish per machine becomes real money. I've got a group that has funds for a $300,000 cluster next year (and no money for additional IT ;-). Even if you dropped $250,000 on compute nodes and the rest on infrastructure you're looking at 50 nice compute nodes (at 5K apeace). Drop $300 per node and you've got another free $15,000. On a tight IT budget, that's a lot of money. Hell, my most metrics that's a lot of money.
I'm actually not looking to buy an Apple server for the small project I mentioned earlier. I need something with guaranteed Debian Linux support (or SuSe at the very least). I do want to go Core2Duo or Core2Quatro since we have tight thermal requirements and price/performance is a huge issue.
I wasn't aware you could buy an XServe with no drives. It's odd for vendors to ship devices that can't be bench tested as is (unless Apple remote boots them on the line).
One of my big complaints with the XServe is that you don't get empty drive sleds if you don't order Apple drives. Apple ships covers for the un-used drives and you don't get the drive sleds unless you buy an expensive module from Apple.
Another complaint, Apple uses SMART but they don't support SMART on drives other than those that ship in XServes. The drives have to have Apple approved firmware. We bought 80GB modules and upgraded to nicer 300GB models (cheaper OEM even with a spare on the shelf compared to Apple's 250s) and the XServe won't read the SMART data from the drives.
The whole point of the XServe Cluster Node was to leave the frills out, like the drive bays and drives, so that you can get the most bang for the lowest buck. If Apple does go back to a cluster node, they'd likely drop the dual PowerSupplies also since a cluster node can go off line without pulling down a cluster.
A few bucks doesn't seem like much until you start pricing 40 or 100 or even 1000 compute nodes and then $300ish per machine becomes real money. I've got a group that has funds for a $300,000 cluster next year (and no money for additional IT ;-). Even if you dropped $250,000 on compute nodes and the rest on infrastructure you're looking at 50 nice compute nodes (at 5K apeace). Drop $300 per node and you've got another free $15,000. On a tight IT budget, that's a lot of money. Hell, my most metrics that's a lot of money.
I'm actually not looking to buy an Apple server for the small project I mentioned earlier. I need something with guaranteed Debian Linux support (or SuSe at the very least). I do want to go Core2Duo or Core2Quatro since we have tight thermal requirements and price/performance is a huge issue.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 20, 10:33 PM
sorry, but wherever you got your information, it is not correct. fwiw, my last car, a vw passat, i sold with 312k miles on it. i bought it new at the dealer. still had the original clutch. your 100k replacement claim is bogus.
highway mileage is different due to gear ratios, not "physically locked". automatics use different ratios than manuals, even with same engine. shift speed is irrelevant for mileage.
and lastly, manuals do not cost more. every car i've ever owned, new or old, including my 2007 porsche 911, have come standard with a manual transmission. if you want automatic, that's an option you pay extra for, several $thousand in some cases. i've never owned an American car, so maybe the domestics are different, but your blanket statement is still wrong.
on my wife's mercedes, it needs automatic fluid change every 30k miles. dealer charges ~$300 for this. That's $1000 in service in 90k miles assuming nothing breaks. My manual transmission requires no service or fluid changes for 100k miles. $1000 in maintenance vs $0 in maintenance. automatic is far more expensive from a maintenance standpoint.
Umm porsche not exactly a valid argument of a car and that falls in the sports car catigory. Complete different field.
As for the clutchs 300k on a original clutch is pretty far unless you do heavy high way miles there.
Going heavy city lets see I had to replace the clutch in my old car at around 95k. My dad replaced the clutch in is Honda at 110k. Numbers I have been reading off the net about my current car clutches are going at 90-120k range. Now it does depend on driving. You are not going to find mean 300k on a original clutch. 100k is more the norm. Big time with city miles on it.
Also my car manual cost me more about 1000 bucks more but at it is a higher model as the model right below it is auto only. Manuals are being mostly reduced to sporter car lines/models now days leaving autos for everything else.
Yes they have different gear ratios comparing the 2 but for MPG sorry Manuals are losing out. They can not compete with CVS, computer controlled shifting and now adding in extra gears. Those factors are just adding up against Manuals and they can not keep up. Manuals are limited to human timing which losses to computer timing. And the shifting timing is not the speed the shift is done but at what RPM are at the given load. Computers can adjust to getting best MPG at a given load demand far better than a human which means they have better MPG.
highway mileage is different due to gear ratios, not "physically locked". automatics use different ratios than manuals, even with same engine. shift speed is irrelevant for mileage.
and lastly, manuals do not cost more. every car i've ever owned, new or old, including my 2007 porsche 911, have come standard with a manual transmission. if you want automatic, that's an option you pay extra for, several $thousand in some cases. i've never owned an American car, so maybe the domestics are different, but your blanket statement is still wrong.
on my wife's mercedes, it needs automatic fluid change every 30k miles. dealer charges ~$300 for this. That's $1000 in service in 90k miles assuming nothing breaks. My manual transmission requires no service or fluid changes for 100k miles. $1000 in maintenance vs $0 in maintenance. automatic is far more expensive from a maintenance standpoint.
Umm porsche not exactly a valid argument of a car and that falls in the sports car catigory. Complete different field.
As for the clutchs 300k on a original clutch is pretty far unless you do heavy high way miles there.
Going heavy city lets see I had to replace the clutch in my old car at around 95k. My dad replaced the clutch in is Honda at 110k. Numbers I have been reading off the net about my current car clutches are going at 90-120k range. Now it does depend on driving. You are not going to find mean 300k on a original clutch. 100k is more the norm. Big time with city miles on it.
Also my car manual cost me more about 1000 bucks more but at it is a higher model as the model right below it is auto only. Manuals are being mostly reduced to sporter car lines/models now days leaving autos for everything else.
Yes they have different gear ratios comparing the 2 but for MPG sorry Manuals are losing out. They can not compete with CVS, computer controlled shifting and now adding in extra gears. Those factors are just adding up against Manuals and they can not keep up. Manuals are limited to human timing which losses to computer timing. And the shifting timing is not the speed the shift is done but at what RPM are at the given load. Computers can adjust to getting best MPG at a given load demand far better than a human which means they have better MPG.
Cliff3
Jan 27, 07:21 PM
http://www.coates3.com/gallery2/d/44261-1/painted+grill-0270.jpg
I put some painted grills on it yesterday, and had pre- and post-cat O2 sensors installed along with the fuel filter today. It looks pretty good for a car with 103k miles on the odo (I'm the original owner).
I put some painted grills on it yesterday, and had pre- and post-cat O2 sensors installed along with the fuel filter today. It looks pretty good for a car with 103k miles on the odo (I'm the original owner).
Unspeaked
Nov 28, 11:33 AM
I know that it's not quite fair to compare the two right out of the launch (a baby product versus a mature one), but MS didn't help themselves by setting up this product to compete directly with the iPod. If they had tried to target a different market (maybe primarily video as opposed to music), they might have more success, and let the hype build from there. But the way they seem to be playing it now, they're going to just throw a lot of money into something that will be in Apple's shadow. It'll offer a compelling alternative to some, but will not necessarily convince too many to become switchers. :p
Wow. Substitute "Mac OS" for "Zune" and "Windows" for "iPod" and that could have been any random post on Mac Rumors from the last five years!
;)
Wow. Substitute "Mac OS" for "Zune" and "Windows" for "iPod" and that could have been any random post on Mac Rumors from the last five years!
;)
pjarvi
Jun 23, 09:17 AM
Since the iMac already has a camera built-in, they might just be jumping on the motion control bandwagon. That way you wouldn't have to physically have to touch the screen, and they wouldn't have to add any new hardware, just a software solution. Unless, they're adding additional sensors similar to Microsoft's Kinect device coming to the Xbox 360.
rockosmodurnlif
Apr 2, 08:35 PM
I believe! But I'm still not buying one.
Hmmm... not really. I hate marketing. Nothing they say will change that. They also need to stop calling the iPad "magical". It really isn't. It's very nice, but not magical.
"This is what we believe. Technology alone is not enough. Faster, thinner, lighter...those are all good things. But when technology gets out of the way, everything becomes more delightful...even magical very nice. That's when you leap forward. That's when you end up with something like this."
Hmmm... not really. I hate marketing. Nothing they say will change that. They also need to stop calling the iPad "magical". It really isn't. It's very nice, but not magical.
"This is what we believe. Technology alone is not enough. Faster, thinner, lighter...those are all good things. But when technology gets out of the way, everything becomes more delightful...even magical very nice. That's when you leap forward. That's when you end up with something like this."
Tilpots
Oct 23, 08:58 AM
Orange enclosures and a scary, carved apple face for a Halloween Release!:D
lseven
Nov 27, 02:28 PM
Allright, for the 473rd time! They don't use the same panel!:eek:
See? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Sorry, that link doesn't say anything about the 20" monitors referenced in the original thread.
See? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Sorry, that link doesn't say anything about the 20" monitors referenced in the original thread.
Hollis
Jul 13, 11:23 PM
I'd think the option would come a bit later. I mean, who wants an optical drive that can currently play nothing and burn to nothing which will cost them $500-$1000 on a machine that is already very pricey.
Theres movies on Blu-Ray already.. and you can buy discs to burn too already... I think a BTO option is perfectly reasonable.
Theres movies on Blu-Ray already.. and you can buy discs to burn too already... I think a BTO option is perfectly reasonable.
MikhailT
Apr 10, 10:35 AM
I don't understand why everyone seems to dislike the "new" iCal so much. Clearly, it was adopted by iPad iOS at first and now by Mac OS X Lion. Nothing new here. Nothing unexpected.
I don't remember people disliking/complaining about the iCal look on iPad at all. I tell ya, people complain just for the sake of complaining. What a crowd. :rolleyes:It doesn't look exactly the same on the iPad and an interface tuned to iOS shouldn't be used in the same away on the desktop. You can be creative with the interface controls and so on but this is too far. The colors are too distracting and much *brighter* than the one used on the iPad.
The problem that I have is that Apple seems to breaking away from their Human Interface Guidelines that every developers on the Macs platform follows. The sooner they do this, the more likely the third party apps are going to not follow it either. If every apps looks completely different, then it's going to be harder to get used to how things work on the Mac platform. Consistency is the number 1 thing that Mac OS X does successfully and if we break away from it, it's going to look ugly overnight.
I don't think people are complaining for the sake of complaining, in this case, they have a valid reason to. Not only is it look completely different, it can be distracting when you're used to all metal theme on OS X and you can't choose to disable this interface.
IMO, it's distracting, ugly and I want an option to turn this off. Otherwise, I'd just wait for a third-party app with a better interface and/or hacks to enable the *Aqua* theme.
I don't remember people disliking/complaining about the iCal look on iPad at all. I tell ya, people complain just for the sake of complaining. What a crowd. :rolleyes:It doesn't look exactly the same on the iPad and an interface tuned to iOS shouldn't be used in the same away on the desktop. You can be creative with the interface controls and so on but this is too far. The colors are too distracting and much *brighter* than the one used on the iPad.
The problem that I have is that Apple seems to breaking away from their Human Interface Guidelines that every developers on the Macs platform follows. The sooner they do this, the more likely the third party apps are going to not follow it either. If every apps looks completely different, then it's going to be harder to get used to how things work on the Mac platform. Consistency is the number 1 thing that Mac OS X does successfully and if we break away from it, it's going to look ugly overnight.
I don't think people are complaining for the sake of complaining, in this case, they have a valid reason to. Not only is it look completely different, it can be distracting when you're used to all metal theme on OS X and you can't choose to disable this interface.
IMO, it's distracting, ugly and I want an option to turn this off. Otherwise, I'd just wait for a third-party app with a better interface and/or hacks to enable the *Aqua* theme.
rdowns
Mar 19, 05:50 PM
Haven't you heard?
Cold fusion is being suppressed, for now, just like the 100 mpg carburettor was. :)
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Get your attributions straight old man. I didn't say that.
Cold fusion is being suppressed, for now, just like the 100 mpg carburettor was. :)
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Get your attributions straight old man. I didn't say that.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 16, 08:59 AM
Wireless iPod? I just don't see the point. Given how energy dense batteries are today syncing with iTunes would drain the battery in no time.
Wireless headsets? Big cluncky things that needs to be charged too.
The only rational for a wireless iPod would be if it became more of a PDA with GPS, or if went iPhone.
Wireless headsets? Big cluncky things that needs to be charged too.
The only rational for a wireless iPod would be if it became more of a PDA with GPS, or if went iPhone.
qualleyiv
Nov 15, 10:30 AM
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
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...
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
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...
