andrewm
Aug 23, 11:07 AM
I did...:D
DIE POWER PC...DIE!!!
Most agreed. I'm using an iBook G4 right now, but I'd practically sell my kidneys (both of 'em!) to convert it to a MacBook Pro.
Let us continue to pray for a speedy death to the Macintosh PowerPC computer.
DIE POWER PC...DIE!!!
Most agreed. I'm using an iBook G4 right now, but I'd practically sell my kidneys (both of 'em!) to convert it to a MacBook Pro.
Let us continue to pray for a speedy death to the Macintosh PowerPC computer.
ergle2
Sep 15, 01:08 PM
On an unrelated note, wouldnt it been cool to effectivly install a whole OS on RAM. That would be noticably quicker....
The OS would be faster but unless you had tons of RAM, the Apps ... :)
Modern OSes use RAM not used by apps to cache recently used files/data, since it makes more sense to keep around stuff the system mind need again. Most OS files aren't needed (just look at the size of the OS itself on any system!).
Of course, back in my Amiga days, pretty much all the OS was running from ROM/RAM, and it had pre-emptive multitasking but no VM system. As a result, it was incredibly snappy to use, despite being a 7.14MHz 68K. I've occasionally seen real Amigas since then and I'm always impressed by how "fast" it feels, even if the system itself seems rather primative by modern standards.
I imagine the early Macs were somewhat similar in this regard, but I didn't use one properly til the early 90's, by which time I was more interested in Unix, VMS, etc.
The OS would be faster but unless you had tons of RAM, the Apps ... :)
Modern OSes use RAM not used by apps to cache recently used files/data, since it makes more sense to keep around stuff the system mind need again. Most OS files aren't needed (just look at the size of the OS itself on any system!).
Of course, back in my Amiga days, pretty much all the OS was running from ROM/RAM, and it had pre-emptive multitasking but no VM system. As a result, it was incredibly snappy to use, despite being a 7.14MHz 68K. I've occasionally seen real Amigas since then and I'm always impressed by how "fast" it feels, even if the system itself seems rather primative by modern standards.
I imagine the early Macs were somewhat similar in this regard, but I didn't use one properly til the early 90's, by which time I was more interested in Unix, VMS, etc.
Angelus520
Aug 11, 10:41 AM
Take a look at the Nokia E61. I just got one to replace my BlackBerry and love it. It's the European version and you have to buy it unlocked ($350 or so) but it works great. Cingular is coming out with a dumbed down version called the E62 but strips away some of the cool features like WiFi. Go figure - an American phone with less features than the one sold in the rest of the world.
With crappy phones and our pathetic broadband infrastructure, you'd think we were Third World rather than a "Superpower."
I don't care so much about the iPod capability, but I would like to see the result of a smartphone by Apple. I haven't jumped on the bandwagon of the Treos and Palms.
Call me a sucker, but I'd like somehting that could do all the mundane, make my life easier, organization crap, and have it look cool as well. Oh, and not run on a crap OS.
With crappy phones and our pathetic broadband infrastructure, you'd think we were Third World rather than a "Superpower."
I don't care so much about the iPod capability, but I would like to see the result of a smartphone by Apple. I haven't jumped on the bandwagon of the Treos and Palms.
Call me a sucker, but I'd like somehting that could do all the mundane, make my life easier, organization crap, and have it look cool as well. Oh, and not run on a crap OS.
dukeblue91
Apr 6, 01:30 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Motorola doesn't "get" tablets yet, but the G1 didn't sell well either. Let's look at the market again in two years, I bet it'll look a lot different.
Not if you take any one model against whatever current iPad model.
The same goes for the iPhone vs anyone else.
Motorola doesn't "get" tablets yet, but the G1 didn't sell well either. Let's look at the market again in two years, I bet it'll look a lot different.
Not if you take any one model against whatever current iPad model.
The same goes for the iPhone vs anyone else.
NJRonbo
Jun 14, 07:24 PM
Bbiz,
Keep us posted. Worse case I pre order from Apple first
thing tomorrow then cancel if Radio Shack guarantees me
a phone later that day with their PIN program.
Keep us posted. Worse case I pre order from Apple first
thing tomorrow then cancel if Radio Shack guarantees me
a phone later that day with their PIN program.
WillEH
Mar 25, 10:26 PM
Good stuff, waiting and ready to pay! :o
mcrain
Mar 22, 02:41 PM
Mcrain, don't try changing history. Look back at all the left-wing loons screaming racist, war-monger, 'blood for oil' when Bush attacked Iraq... where are they now? It's the media to a lesser extent, but they certainly play a role.
Wait a second again. Don't you try changing history. What "left-wing loons" are you talking about? I was right here saying we shouldn't be invading without more evidence and more time for the UN to search for WMDs, and I'm sure you would consider that yelling war-monger, blood for oil, etc..., but I'm not a "party insider", candidate or elected official. As for those on the left before Iraq, one guy who opposed the war from the start is president today.
Compare today to prior to the Iraq war. Today there are some democrats airing concerns about this action. Before the Iraq war, the GOP in congress were less independent than a sock puppet. Other than Ron Paul (who I know you support), did anyone in the GOP offer any criticism? If not, then isn't your party worse? I mean, you ONLY have one person who can claim with a straight face that he is not being a hipocrite in his criticism today. ONLY one.
As for Paul, you're probably right, unless people wake up, unless something happens, he won't get the nomination. That's why I'm doing all I can now to help the cause and promote his values across my state. No, I did not see the 'ghostwritten' pamphlet. What's the significance. And Rand didn't trip over anything.
Ron Paul's pamphlet... Controversial claims made in Ron Paul's newsletters, written in the first person narrative, included statements such as "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day." Along with "even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." Another notable statement that garnered controversy was "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be". An issue from 1992 refers to carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos." In an article titled "The Pink House" the newsletter wrote that "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities." These publications would later create political problems for Paul and he considered retiring his seat. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Newsletter_controversy)
Rand didn't trip on the Civil Rights Act? Ok, only if you agree with him that entire towns in the South should have the right to discriminate like they used to. The free market will sort it out... just like it did before the civil rights act.
Wait a second again. Don't you try changing history. What "left-wing loons" are you talking about? I was right here saying we shouldn't be invading without more evidence and more time for the UN to search for WMDs, and I'm sure you would consider that yelling war-monger, blood for oil, etc..., but I'm not a "party insider", candidate or elected official. As for those on the left before Iraq, one guy who opposed the war from the start is president today.
Compare today to prior to the Iraq war. Today there are some democrats airing concerns about this action. Before the Iraq war, the GOP in congress were less independent than a sock puppet. Other than Ron Paul (who I know you support), did anyone in the GOP offer any criticism? If not, then isn't your party worse? I mean, you ONLY have one person who can claim with a straight face that he is not being a hipocrite in his criticism today. ONLY one.
As for Paul, you're probably right, unless people wake up, unless something happens, he won't get the nomination. That's why I'm doing all I can now to help the cause and promote his values across my state. No, I did not see the 'ghostwritten' pamphlet. What's the significance. And Rand didn't trip over anything.
Ron Paul's pamphlet... Controversial claims made in Ron Paul's newsletters, written in the first person narrative, included statements such as "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day." Along with "even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." Another notable statement that garnered controversy was "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be". An issue from 1992 refers to carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos." In an article titled "The Pink House" the newsletter wrote that "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities." These publications would later create political problems for Paul and he considered retiring his seat. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Newsletter_controversy)
Rand didn't trip on the Civil Rights Act? Ok, only if you agree with him that entire towns in the South should have the right to discriminate like they used to. The free market will sort it out... just like it did before the civil rights act.
WildCowboy
Aug 16, 11:32 PM
Bravo.
I don't know what ROFL stands for, but from context-clues, I'm thinking it means pretty damn funny. In which case, ROFL, dude.
Rolling On Floor Laughing
I don't know what ROFL stands for, but from context-clues, I'm thinking it means pretty damn funny. In which case, ROFL, dude.
Rolling On Floor Laughing
shawnce
Jul 27, 04:29 PM
What would you suggest as an alternative to "successor" to describe these future chips?
The normally accepted definition of successor is one who replaces the one that came before it (as in succession).
The normally accepted definition of "next generation" in this field implies a new architecture (aka Core 2 to Core 3, or G4 to G5).
Kentfield and Clovertown are simply a different packaging of the Conroe and Woodcrest... putting multiple Conroe or Woodcrest chips into a multiple-chip module (MCM).
Not trying to quibble just make sure folks don't read things incorrectly.
The normally accepted definition of successor is one who replaces the one that came before it (as in succession).
The normally accepted definition of "next generation" in this field implies a new architecture (aka Core 2 to Core 3, or G4 to G5).
Kentfield and Clovertown are simply a different packaging of the Conroe and Woodcrest... putting multiple Conroe or Woodcrest chips into a multiple-chip module (MCM).
Not trying to quibble just make sure folks don't read things incorrectly.
deconai
Aug 11, 03:43 PM
I'm saying that every one and their dog has a cell phone in Europe. Really. Quite literally. http://www.environmental-studies.de/products/Dog-Tracking/dog-tracking.html ;)
Now that's funny. XD
Now that's funny. XD
kdarling
Mar 23, 10:18 AM
If you read my original post, you'll notice that I was referring to the fact that many programmers are careless about optimizing their code all because they can count on a large amount of resources, and because they get lazy.
I think anyone programming above assembly language and/or on a device with more than about 16K of memory, gets lazy :)
Most Mac programmers are good at optimizing, while many Windows programmers are not.
Where does Apple's horrible iTunes for Windows fit into this myth?
I think anyone programming above assembly language and/or on a device with more than about 16K of memory, gets lazy :)
Most Mac programmers are good at optimizing, while many Windows programmers are not.
Where does Apple's horrible iTunes for Windows fit into this myth?
rdowns
Apr 27, 09:22 AM
Before yesterday?
Are you serious?
Are you serious?
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
Zwhaler
Aug 27, 03:08 PM
PowerBook G5 next tuesday?
I havn't been here long, but I don't get it. :confused:
I havn't been here long, but I don't get it. :confused:
gnasher729
Mar 26, 10:19 AM
There is no way this is a GM. The "reporter" is obviously confused. If it was a GM version that means they would be sending it off for duplication soon. Since WWDC is months away this makes no sense.
To be fair, they are saying "nearing a Golden Master candidate". Which is quite meaningless, because Lion is "nearing a Golden Master candidate" from the time when the first line of code for Lion was written.
Apple has a list of features that need adding to produce Lion, and a list of known problems that need to be fixed. The developers' job is to add the features and to fix the known problems; someone else's job is to find yet unknown problems before customers find them. You get a "Golden Master candidate" when all features are implemented (or management decided that something wouldn't be a feature), and all problems known at that moment in time are fixed. If new problems are found in the "Golden Master candidate" then the developers fix them and create a new "Golden Master candidate". If no new problems are found then the "Golden Master" candidate turns into a "Golden Master", and that will be the released version of MacOS X 10.7.0.
To be fair, they are saying "nearing a Golden Master candidate". Which is quite meaningless, because Lion is "nearing a Golden Master candidate" from the time when the first line of code for Lion was written.
Apple has a list of features that need adding to produce Lion, and a list of known problems that need to be fixed. The developers' job is to add the features and to fix the known problems; someone else's job is to find yet unknown problems before customers find them. You get a "Golden Master candidate" when all features are implemented (or management decided that something wouldn't be a feature), and all problems known at that moment in time are fixed. If new problems are found in the "Golden Master candidate" then the developers fix them and create a new "Golden Master candidate". If no new problems are found then the "Golden Master" candidate turns into a "Golden Master", and that will be the released version of MacOS X 10.7.0.
generik
Sep 19, 05:04 AM
I wish this board would block automatically "************" and replace it with "************" so this tired so-called-joke would end someday.
Huh? :confused:
Huh? :confused:
CHAOS STEP
Mar 2, 07:14 PM
Well it certainly isn't the Renaissance mind, as Leonardo and Michelangelo were pretty clearly raving homosexuals.
Really! Man I'm throwing out my Ninja Turtles pyjamas.
Really! Man I'm throwing out my Ninja Turtles pyjamas.
dime21
May 3, 09:03 AM
I'll preface this by saying that I'm not a 'birther', I believe O'bama is the rightful president of the US. That said, this video, if it's true (I don't have Adobe Illustrator to verify) is pretty embarassing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY
RebeccaL
Mar 31, 09:20 PM
I hope this silences all the Android trolls that claimed there was no fragmentation.
NJRonbo
Jun 22, 09:05 AM
ugp,
Were there any PINS given in your store?
Please keep us updated. We look forward to it.
Thanks
Were there any PINS given in your store?
Please keep us updated. We look forward to it.
Thanks
deej999
Apr 6, 02:32 AM
Mercury actually doesn't need CUDA but having a 1gig graphics card (not gonna happen on a portable laptop) will enable CUDA and supposed turbo charged results and rendering
The new MBPs have the option of a 1GB Graphics card. Am using one now!
http://www.apple.com/uk/macbookpro/performance.html
The new MBPs have the option of a 1GB Graphics card. Am using one now!
http://www.apple.com/uk/macbookpro/performance.html
~Shard~
Aug 11, 02:45 PM
I would add
CaoCao
Mar 4, 04:01 PM
The problem with your "logic" is that not everybody is gay. Homosexuality is nothing new, gay people have been around for a long time, and humanity is surviving.
Except I was responding to a post that suggested heterosexuals stop having sex...
Except I was responding to a post that suggested heterosexuals stop having sex...
JeffDM
Sep 16, 04:39 PM
You are right. However, you try to tell consumers "Well we are moving to 2.4Ghz chips" after you just had 2.66Ghz and 3.0Ghz chips. It isnt going to work.
If today, Dell decided to move there whole line back to 1Ghz processors, nobody would buy. Unfortunetly the Ghz myth is a strong as its ever been. Taking a step backward is not an option.
It's already happened, just not in as a melodramatic way as you suggest (back to 1GHz? geez). AMD took a small step back, Hz wise when they introduced dual core, though it still advanced their "+" processor ratings I suppose that few noticed the actual clock reduction. Intel took a major step back Hz wise between Netburst and Core 2. The 5000 and 5100 series Xeon CPUs demonstrate this, you can get a Dell precision 690 with 3.73GHz Netburst based chips or the same 690 with 3.0GHz Core2 based chips.
So I don't think that a quad core Xeon running at 2.66GHz is going to be hurt too much in comparison to a dual core 3.0GHz, it's still a much more powerful processor.
Didn't you get the memo, PowerPC is dead. WTF does that have to do with anything? Do you just have this Pavlovian response to the word "Hyperthreading"?
PPC isn't dead, it's just not in new desktops anymore. IBM is making them (or at least co-designed them) for all the next generation game consoles and a lot of huge supercomputers.
If today, Dell decided to move there whole line back to 1Ghz processors, nobody would buy. Unfortunetly the Ghz myth is a strong as its ever been. Taking a step backward is not an option.
It's already happened, just not in as a melodramatic way as you suggest (back to 1GHz? geez). AMD took a small step back, Hz wise when they introduced dual core, though it still advanced their "+" processor ratings I suppose that few noticed the actual clock reduction. Intel took a major step back Hz wise between Netburst and Core 2. The 5000 and 5100 series Xeon CPUs demonstrate this, you can get a Dell precision 690 with 3.73GHz Netburst based chips or the same 690 with 3.0GHz Core2 based chips.
So I don't think that a quad core Xeon running at 2.66GHz is going to be hurt too much in comparison to a dual core 3.0GHz, it's still a much more powerful processor.
Didn't you get the memo, PowerPC is dead. WTF does that have to do with anything? Do you just have this Pavlovian response to the word "Hyperthreading"?
PPC isn't dead, it's just not in new desktops anymore. IBM is making them (or at least co-designed them) for all the next generation game consoles and a lot of huge supercomputers.
No comments:
Post a Comment