carlgo
Nov 18, 10:52 AM
Great, now they will seal up all the doors and windows at Foxconn and cavity search the employees when the are allowed out. And some employees will just mysteriously disappear.
crazy dave
Apr 5, 05:41 PM
The problem with CR's iPhone 4 report was not that they didn't recommend the iPhone 4 when it originally came out on AT&T but that they then reiterated their "Not recommend" labeling for the Verizon iPhone 4 for having the same 'death grip' issue. They did this despite that the Verizon version had a different antenna design. Anandtech, who were amongst the first to quantify the 'death grip' issue for the AT&T version, showed that in fact the VZ iPhone 4 fared no worse than other smartphones. For the original iPhone 4, CR felt while it was great in many categories, it's antenna issue was too great a problem in their eyes. One could argue that they overstated the problem given that most users didn't seem to mind, but their position of "Not recommended" is not unjustifiable for the AT&T iPhone 4. However, CR clearly screwed up on the VZ iPhone 4.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/03/technology/verizon_iphone/index.htm
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4163/verizon-iphone-4-review/
http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/03/technology/verizon_iphone/index.htm
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4163/verizon-iphone-4-review/
dslade09
Mar 8, 05:42 PM
Macbook Pro keyboard!
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5175/5510770436_a24e5fc2de_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/59686301@N05/5510770436/)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5175/5510770436_a24e5fc2de_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/59686301@N05/5510770436/)
TheMacBookPro
Apr 23, 11:28 AM
Just saw this thread, so I figured I'd share some knowledge (been gaming for 8 years).
So the reason why people are avoiding these things like the plague is because they STINK. The Intel chipsets ARE more powerful than the NVIDIA 320M, BUT, that doesn't always equal better performance.
Game developers usually design games on nvidia chipsets (Hence, "Nvidia: The way it's meant to be played) slogan.
Although the 3000HD shows better specs, it's been proven to perform worse in game. The reason being that the drivers are total rubbish. Until they can improve the drivers, it's a downgrade. But then again.............who in their right mind would try and game with a laptop!? ;)
:eek: You're joking right?
I have always gamed on laptops - M17x, M11x, MBP, VAIO Z... list goes on and on. Add the Air to that list now. The 320M is a very capable chip and it can play many modern games at medium settings smoothly.
The way you describe laptop chipsets makes you sound like you've only ever tried laptop gaming with a GMA500 :p
So the reason why people are avoiding these things like the plague is because they STINK. The Intel chipsets ARE more powerful than the NVIDIA 320M, BUT, that doesn't always equal better performance.
Game developers usually design games on nvidia chipsets (Hence, "Nvidia: The way it's meant to be played) slogan.
Although the 3000HD shows better specs, it's been proven to perform worse in game. The reason being that the drivers are total rubbish. Until they can improve the drivers, it's a downgrade. But then again.............who in their right mind would try and game with a laptop!? ;)
:eek: You're joking right?
I have always gamed on laptops - M17x, M11x, MBP, VAIO Z... list goes on and on. Add the Air to that list now. The 320M is a very capable chip and it can play many modern games at medium settings smoothly.
The way you describe laptop chipsets makes you sound like you've only ever tried laptop gaming with a GMA500 :p
more...
nixd2001
Sep 14, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by onemoof
Someone asked the difference between RISC and CISC.
First thing, there isn't that distinction anymore. RISC originally meant that the processor had fixed width instructions (so it wouldn't have to waste time asking the software how big the next instruction will be). CISC mean that the processor had variable width instructions (meaning time would have to be taken to figure out how long the next instruction is before fetching it.) However, Intel has addressed this problem by making it possible for the processor to switch to a fixed-width mode for special processor intensive purposes. The PowerPC is stuck with fixed-width and has no ability to enjoy the flexibility of variable-width instructions for non-processor-intensive tasks. This means that CISC is now better than RISC. (Using the terms to loosely define Pentium as CISC and PowerPC as RISC.)
Originally it was Reduced versus Complex instruction set computer. Making simpler processors go faster is generally easier than making complex processors go faster as there is less internal state/logic to synchronise and keep track of. For any given fabrication technology, this still generally holds true. Intel managed to sidestep this principle by investing massive sums in their fab plants, effectively meaning that the fab processes being compared weren't the same.
The opposite end of the spectrum from RISC is arguably the VAX line. With this instruction set, massive complexities arose from the fact that a single instruction took so long and did so much. It was possible for timers, interrupts and "page faults" to occur midway during an instruction. This required saving a lot of internal state so that it could later be restored. There were examples of performing a given operation with a single instruction or a sequence of instructions that performed the same effect, but where the sequence achieved the join quicker because the internal implementation within the processor was able to get on with the job quicker because it was actually a simpler task being asked of it.
The idea of fixed sized instructions isn't directly coupled to the original notion of RISC, although it is only one step behind. One of the basic ideas with the original RISC processors was that an instruction should only take a single cycle to complete. So a 100MHz CPU might actually achieve 100M instructions per second. (This was often not achieved due to memory latencies, but this isn't the "fault" of the processor core). In this context, having a variable length instruction means that it is easy for the instruction decoding (especially if it requires more than one "word") to require for effort than any other aspect of executing an instruction.
There are situations where a variable width instruction might have advantages, but the argument goes that breaking the overall task down into equal sized instructions means that fetching (including caching, branch predicting, ec) and decoding these instructions becomes simpler, permitting optimisations and speed gains to be made elsewhere in the processor design.
Intel blur RISC and CISC into gray by effectively executing RISC instructions internally, even if they support the apparent decoding of CISC insructions. They only do this for legacy reasons.
Apple will never switch to IA32 (Pentium) because 32 bit processors are a dead-end and maybe have a couple years left. The reason is because they can only have a maximum of 4 GB of RAM [ (2^32)/(1 Billion) = 4.29 GB ]. This limit is very close to being reached in current desktop computers. Apple MAY at some point decide to jump to IA64 in my opinion, and I think they should. Obviously the Intel family of processors is unbeatable unless they have some sort of catastrophe happen to them. If Apple jumped on they'd be back on track. Unfortunately I don't believe IA64 is yet cheap enough for desktops.
I think this "unbeatable" assertion requires some qualification. It may be that Intel will achieve the best price/performance ratio within a suitable range of qualifications, but this is different from always achieving best p/p ratio whatever. Indeed, IA64 versus Power4 is going to be an interesting battle because Intel has bet on ILP (instruction level parallelism) whereas IBM has bet on data bandwidth. Ultimately (and today!), I think IBM's bet has more going for it. But that's if you want ultimate performance. The PC space is often characterised by people apparenntly wanting ultimate performance but actually always massively qualifiying it with severe price restrictions (such as less than 5 digits to the price).
Someone asked the difference between RISC and CISC.
First thing, there isn't that distinction anymore. RISC originally meant that the processor had fixed width instructions (so it wouldn't have to waste time asking the software how big the next instruction will be). CISC mean that the processor had variable width instructions (meaning time would have to be taken to figure out how long the next instruction is before fetching it.) However, Intel has addressed this problem by making it possible for the processor to switch to a fixed-width mode for special processor intensive purposes. The PowerPC is stuck with fixed-width and has no ability to enjoy the flexibility of variable-width instructions for non-processor-intensive tasks. This means that CISC is now better than RISC. (Using the terms to loosely define Pentium as CISC and PowerPC as RISC.)
Originally it was Reduced versus Complex instruction set computer. Making simpler processors go faster is generally easier than making complex processors go faster as there is less internal state/logic to synchronise and keep track of. For any given fabrication technology, this still generally holds true. Intel managed to sidestep this principle by investing massive sums in their fab plants, effectively meaning that the fab processes being compared weren't the same.
The opposite end of the spectrum from RISC is arguably the VAX line. With this instruction set, massive complexities arose from the fact that a single instruction took so long and did so much. It was possible for timers, interrupts and "page faults" to occur midway during an instruction. This required saving a lot of internal state so that it could later be restored. There were examples of performing a given operation with a single instruction or a sequence of instructions that performed the same effect, but where the sequence achieved the join quicker because the internal implementation within the processor was able to get on with the job quicker because it was actually a simpler task being asked of it.
The idea of fixed sized instructions isn't directly coupled to the original notion of RISC, although it is only one step behind. One of the basic ideas with the original RISC processors was that an instruction should only take a single cycle to complete. So a 100MHz CPU might actually achieve 100M instructions per second. (This was often not achieved due to memory latencies, but this isn't the "fault" of the processor core). In this context, having a variable length instruction means that it is easy for the instruction decoding (especially if it requires more than one "word") to require for effort than any other aspect of executing an instruction.
There are situations where a variable width instruction might have advantages, but the argument goes that breaking the overall task down into equal sized instructions means that fetching (including caching, branch predicting, ec) and decoding these instructions becomes simpler, permitting optimisations and speed gains to be made elsewhere in the processor design.
Intel blur RISC and CISC into gray by effectively executing RISC instructions internally, even if they support the apparent decoding of CISC insructions. They only do this for legacy reasons.
Apple will never switch to IA32 (Pentium) because 32 bit processors are a dead-end and maybe have a couple years left. The reason is because they can only have a maximum of 4 GB of RAM [ (2^32)/(1 Billion) = 4.29 GB ]. This limit is very close to being reached in current desktop computers. Apple MAY at some point decide to jump to IA64 in my opinion, and I think they should. Obviously the Intel family of processors is unbeatable unless they have some sort of catastrophe happen to them. If Apple jumped on they'd be back on track. Unfortunately I don't believe IA64 is yet cheap enough for desktops.
I think this "unbeatable" assertion requires some qualification. It may be that Intel will achieve the best price/performance ratio within a suitable range of qualifications, but this is different from always achieving best p/p ratio whatever. Indeed, IA64 versus Power4 is going to be an interesting battle because Intel has bet on ILP (instruction level parallelism) whereas IBM has bet on data bandwidth. Ultimately (and today!), I think IBM's bet has more going for it. But that's if you want ultimate performance. The PC space is often characterised by people apparenntly wanting ultimate performance but actually always massively qualifiying it with severe price restrictions (such as less than 5 digits to the price).
PeterQVenkman
Feb 26, 02:31 PM
Very well said - the absurd pension benefits they get for so little time is a glaring example of the abuse of power that our elected parasites exhibit.
If you don't mind, I'm going to steal your phrase "elected parasites." ;)
If you don't mind, I'm going to steal your phrase "elected parasites." ;)
more...
MacManiac1224
Sep 13, 04:47 PM
eweek is a magazine for enterprise customers, there is no link i can provide, but you can take my word for it.
peskaa
Apr 5, 07:07 AM
Somehow I was expecting to see a lot more praise and excitement for the 3DS after it launched....
The 3D effect seems to trigger mixed reactions. Other than that...there really doesn't seem to be anything truly exciting about it? I don't see any "wow, those graphics!!" or "holy cow, this thing is fast/powerful" type comments.
The general vibe I am getting from here and other places is more like "pretty neat", rather than "wow, so awesome". :confused:
Because that's exactly the response.
The 3DS graphics are roughly the same as PSP, so nothing new (and in fact, so 2005) and hence nothing to jump up and down about. Sure, it's better than the DS...
The 3D is mixed reactions because it's...meh. The consensus is that it's cool for a while, after which your eyes hurt, or the battery dies, or you get fed up with losing the sweet spot all the time. It's got the wow factor of being a new technology, but no real lasting appeal.
I had a 3DS for three days, sent it back. Totally underwhelmed.
The 3D effect seems to trigger mixed reactions. Other than that...there really doesn't seem to be anything truly exciting about it? I don't see any "wow, those graphics!!" or "holy cow, this thing is fast/powerful" type comments.
The general vibe I am getting from here and other places is more like "pretty neat", rather than "wow, so awesome". :confused:
Because that's exactly the response.
The 3DS graphics are roughly the same as PSP, so nothing new (and in fact, so 2005) and hence nothing to jump up and down about. Sure, it's better than the DS...
The 3D is mixed reactions because it's...meh. The consensus is that it's cool for a while, after which your eyes hurt, or the battery dies, or you get fed up with losing the sweet spot all the time. It's got the wow factor of being a new technology, but no real lasting appeal.
I had a 3DS for three days, sent it back. Totally underwhelmed.
more...
ECUpirate44
Apr 14, 01:16 PM
Page 2?
stainlessliquid
Apr 15, 10:27 AM
is it just me or does this look like it was grabbed from a used car commercial?
more...
Popeye206
Apr 21, 01:29 PM
Are they adding some decent controls though?
Yeah... a slide out Joy stick! :rolleyes:
Yeah... a slide out Joy stick! :rolleyes:
clayj
Sep 18, 09:35 PM
I think you have a better chance of dating Emily Rossum than this Apple store girl. :pIt's EMMY Rossum. ;)
more...
AppleInLVX
Apr 19, 03:05 PM
White doesn't do it for me much. Is this how Apple wants to attract more female users? I know that's part of why RIM releases white devices...
blufire
Oct 26, 11:14 PM
I didn't notice any speed difference between FX 2.0 and Safari 2.0.4. If anything, Safari felt slightly snappier. (Mac OS X 10.4.8 on a Power Mac G4 MDD Dual 1 GHz)
more...
ghostlyorb
Apr 5, 07:43 PM
Sweet looking iPod!
voicegy
May 8, 12:30 AM
Bigot, Schmigot.....
Another circular discussion on Mac vs. PC that will never win over anyone and most certainly will never come to any rational conclusions...might as well talk about Apples and, well, Oranges.
It really is what someone here said earlier...either you get it or you don't. That has nothing to do with "bigotry" or Christian-like zealot behaviour, although I admit it does exist. (What Dell, IBM, Gateway and all the rest of them wouldn't GIVE to have such brand loyalty, by the way!) Nor does it have to do with PC's "sucking" and Macs "being better" and all the rest.
The Apple brand of products simply "speak" to a part of us who are Mac users. Nothing less, nothing more. We're appreciators of fine design, ergonomics, cutting edge thinking, and the romance of the history of Apple. If there is a part of you that goes to a museum and sees a piece of art that "touches" you in some way, that's the part that is touched by this company. It really is almost unexplainable...and by the statement "you either get it or you don't", it really is meant in the most kindest manner...don't read it as "You're a PeeCee idiot and you just don't understand..." (although out of sheer frustration for always having to feel we have to, or even NEED to, defend ourselves, I can understand such vitrol statements coming from some of our brothers and sisters) the Apple "experience" really does just "fit" in with a part of our being.
And that experience is something you "get" or you "don't". No more, no less... you're not "better" than us, and neither are we "better" than you. And that, my dear PC friend, is the hardest thing to explain of all.:)
Peace, out.
Another circular discussion on Mac vs. PC that will never win over anyone and most certainly will never come to any rational conclusions...might as well talk about Apples and, well, Oranges.
It really is what someone here said earlier...either you get it or you don't. That has nothing to do with "bigotry" or Christian-like zealot behaviour, although I admit it does exist. (What Dell, IBM, Gateway and all the rest of them wouldn't GIVE to have such brand loyalty, by the way!) Nor does it have to do with PC's "sucking" and Macs "being better" and all the rest.
The Apple brand of products simply "speak" to a part of us who are Mac users. Nothing less, nothing more. We're appreciators of fine design, ergonomics, cutting edge thinking, and the romance of the history of Apple. If there is a part of you that goes to a museum and sees a piece of art that "touches" you in some way, that's the part that is touched by this company. It really is almost unexplainable...and by the statement "you either get it or you don't", it really is meant in the most kindest manner...don't read it as "You're a PeeCee idiot and you just don't understand..." (although out of sheer frustration for always having to feel we have to, or even NEED to, defend ourselves, I can understand such vitrol statements coming from some of our brothers and sisters) the Apple "experience" really does just "fit" in with a part of our being.
And that experience is something you "get" or you "don't". No more, no less... you're not "better" than us, and neither are we "better" than you. And that, my dear PC friend, is the hardest thing to explain of all.:)
Peace, out.
more...
bitabytex
Oct 30, 12:06 PM
Has anyone noticed you can upgrade to 4GB of storage for iDisk now?
InuNacho
Apr 5, 06:23 PM
Cool, Apple won a patent for a miniature Sonic & Knuckles cartridge that plugs directly into your Thunderbolt capable computer.
callme
Apr 5, 10:08 AM
I don't buy it. What a nightmare that would be if just touching that area of the iPod took you back to the home screen. (Even the MacBook trackpads require a physical 'click' in order to register.) This would be a usability disaster.
A MacBook trackpad does NOT need a click to register.
You can change the settings so that you do not need to click at all, it simply takes your touch as a click. I use it in this way all the time, I NEVER click the touchpad.
A MacBook trackpad does NOT need a click to register.
You can change the settings so that you do not need to click at all, it simply takes your touch as a click. I use it in this way all the time, I NEVER click the touchpad.
P-Worm
Sep 22, 10:07 AM
Isn't it amazing that no matter what the topic of a thread is about it always seems to degrade into people getting mad at how expensive a Macintosh is? Not to change the subjedt or anything...Carry on.
P-Worm
P-Worm
OneMike
Jan 4, 10:43 AM
Garmin, a little late to the game aren't we?
Late yes, but I think it's not about who gets in first but who does it best. That said. I don't see how over the airs maps can be considered best.
Late yes, but I think it's not about who gets in first but who does it best. That said. I don't see how over the airs maps can be considered best.
F123D
Mar 24, 03:30 PM
Glad I browse these forums at work. Just called my local Verizon and they're holding their last 16GB wifi for me. :D
I can't even get someone on craigslist to sell me their used one for this price!!
I can't even get someone on craigslist to sell me their used one for this price!!
Flying Llama
May 28, 11:41 AM
thx mate. Positive words are always nice to hear/read!
Your welcome!
Actually you can already. I just put some 'MacRumors' text on the back to maybe steal some folders from other teams when i release the beta to the whole wide world ;).
Ahh smart indeed! ;)
Your welcome!
Actually you can already. I just put some 'MacRumors' text on the back to maybe steal some folders from other teams when i release the beta to the whole wide world ;).
Ahh smart indeed! ;)
Rodimus Prime
Apr 8, 07:42 AM
To bad we can not have a vote of no confidence and force all of them to run for reelection now.
