macusersince5
Mar 23, 04:10 PM
this is awesome!!! you know sharing of information can and usually does go both ways:apple::cool:
lorductape
Nov 21, 05:02 PM
as cool as it sounds, point being?
thesmileman
Mar 11, 07:38 AM
....
.jpg "happy birthday poems for kids.")
rasmasyean
May 2, 11:03 AM
Now that OBL is out of the picture, what do you think will happen?
Maybe more "peace lovers" will demand to bring troops home?
Will the US work real hard to find another "prime evil target" to keep the "war mongers" interested?
Maybe Pakistanis will think we now really have little reason to keep bombing them and begin an uprising?
Will we shift focus to Iran?
Detailed analyses and conspiracy theories welcome!
Discuss... :)
Maybe more "peace lovers" will demand to bring troops home?
Will the US work real hard to find another "prime evil target" to keep the "war mongers" interested?
Maybe Pakistanis will think we now really have little reason to keep bombing them and begin an uprising?
Will we shift focus to Iran?
Detailed analyses and conspiracy theories welcome!
Discuss... :)
more...
lilcosco08
Apr 18, 09:50 PM
The NDS (at least in the UK) launched with Mario 64 DS and Wario Ware Touched, two great games rated 85 and 81 by metacritic.com respectively.
The 3DS has Street Fighter.
It also has ridge racer
riiiiiiiiiidge raaaaaaaaaceeeeeeerrr!
The 3DS has Street Fighter.
It also has ridge racer
riiiiiiiiiidge raaaaaaaaaceeeeeeerrr!
blackstarliner
Oct 13, 03:43 AM
my bet is they have several different manufacturers. with macbook split up between 2-3 builders.
I thought it was common knowledge that due to the great demand* for MBs, Apple had to find a second manufacturer to meet orders. Hence all the delays a month or two ago. Is it just me or why haven't folk put 2 and 2 together?
* despite being 'overpriced', 'obsolete' POS that no-one in their right mind would consider when you can have a dell with magical c2d for 300 bucks less? :confused:
I thought it was common knowledge that due to the great demand* for MBs, Apple had to find a second manufacturer to meet orders. Hence all the delays a month or two ago. Is it just me or why haven't folk put 2 and 2 together?
* despite being 'overpriced', 'obsolete' POS that no-one in their right mind would consider when you can have a dell with magical c2d for 300 bucks less? :confused:
more...
twoodcc
Oct 26, 09:32 PM
as much as i'd like to use .mac, i just can't justify the price
mcrain
Mar 11, 03:15 PM
No offense, but that is one ugly car and far too conservative for me. If I was married off and had kids, sure. ;)
Um, you're not a breeder, right? If you are, then I seriously had the wrong impression of you. :D
I thought the same thing about the sebring, and wasn't very happy about the car at first, but absolutely fell in love with it. That was when I was single and before I had a kid. Anyway, I haven't seen a 200 in person yet, but the car it is replacing was butt-ugly.
Um, you're not a breeder, right? If you are, then I seriously had the wrong impression of you. :D
I thought the same thing about the sebring, and wasn't very happy about the car at first, but absolutely fell in love with it. That was when I was single and before I had a kid. Anyway, I haven't seen a 200 in person yet, but the car it is replacing was butt-ugly.
more...
Kaulitz
Mar 27, 06:25 AM
Try �1.42 a litre :rolleyes:
DaveGee
Apr 16, 03:50 PM
I'm not a developer and have no idea what their policies are but will say I think it's a bit lame to have that double standard. If I was the cartoonist I wouldn't have resubmitted it.
THANK YOU! :)
THANK YOU! :)
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).
Sal510
Aug 21, 05:52 PM
so are they trying to run "FourSquare" out of business haha
more...
R.Perez
Apr 3, 10:42 PM
I'm just trying to save some money.
It's clear that California, Texas, and Washington all have bad deficits. Two of them have 0% income tax while one has 10.6%. What conclusion do you want me to draw from this?
California's tax problems are easy to figure out. The electorate can vote for services separately from the taxes needed to fund them..... that's smart.
It's clear that California, Texas, and Washington all have bad deficits. Two of them have 0% income tax while one has 10.6%. What conclusion do you want me to draw from this?
California's tax problems are easy to figure out. The electorate can vote for services separately from the taxes needed to fund them..... that's smart.
bearbo
Oct 10, 09:17 AM
They are both based on the Core architecture, that was my only point.
I thought you were saying that they were completely unrelated.
Of course they are branded differently, they have different uses.
Historically Xeon is for high-end workstations and servers, people know and expect this.
i definitely agree with you that they have very similar underlying technology, but i was just saying that Xeon and Core 2 Duo are two different brand names, Xeon is NOT part of Core 2 Duo
heck, macbook pro and macbook has very similar technology, but hopefully nobody will say macbook pro is part of macbook or visa versa
I thought you were saying that they were completely unrelated.
Of course they are branded differently, they have different uses.
Historically Xeon is for high-end workstations and servers, people know and expect this.
i definitely agree with you that they have very similar underlying technology, but i was just saying that Xeon and Core 2 Duo are two different brand names, Xeon is NOT part of Core 2 Duo
heck, macbook pro and macbook has very similar technology, but hopefully nobody will say macbook pro is part of macbook or visa versa
more...
Glideslope
Mar 28, 10:47 AM
iphone5 will be available within this year.
Sept/Oct. :apple:
Sept/Oct. :apple:
MacBandit
Sep 14, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by MacManiac1224
Can the G4 beat the Pentium 5? You are probably scratching your heads on this one. Yep, the Pentium 5 is very real, and it is coming soon. 2nd quarter of the Pentium 5 debuting at 3.2GHZ is going to come out. It will have 100 million transistors on it and it will be manufactured at .09 microns. Also, here is the doozy, it will have 1 mb of L2 on die cache, and it will support 333mhz bus speeds, with the addition of DDR, that is a possible 667mhz bus speeds. By the way, if you were wondering, the Pentium 4 has 42 million transistors.
Now, for the G4: I am not sure how many transistors the G4 has, but I imagine it is way less then 100 million, or even 42 million, considering the P4 came out after the G4. Anyway, the cache on the G4 is higher on the high-end, 2mb of cache. But: the speed: 1.25Ghz? Can that really stand up to a P5 with 333mhz bus, and 3.2Ghz clock speeds? My opinion: most likely not.
Not to be criticle but the G4 does not have 2mb of L2 cache on the high end model it only has 256k. It does have 2mb of L3. The 1MB of L2 in my oppinion will be a lot faster then any L3 cache because it's accessed at full CPU speed. But we all know this doesn't really make a nickels worth of difference because we all know the current cpu at the current speed would be absolutely trounced by this new pentium. I also know feel that we will not be stuck at this slow progression of speed for the next year.
I personally though am in no way dissapointed in the new macs they are extremely fast. Yes faster then the Quicksilvers they just need to be used in the right application i.e. video editing, gaming, etc.. Anything that requires large amounts of data to be moved from the hard drive to the Ram and the same for the PCI and AGP cards to the Ram or Hard drive.
Can the G4 beat the Pentium 5? You are probably scratching your heads on this one. Yep, the Pentium 5 is very real, and it is coming soon. 2nd quarter of the Pentium 5 debuting at 3.2GHZ is going to come out. It will have 100 million transistors on it and it will be manufactured at .09 microns. Also, here is the doozy, it will have 1 mb of L2 on die cache, and it will support 333mhz bus speeds, with the addition of DDR, that is a possible 667mhz bus speeds. By the way, if you were wondering, the Pentium 4 has 42 million transistors.
Now, for the G4: I am not sure how many transistors the G4 has, but I imagine it is way less then 100 million, or even 42 million, considering the P4 came out after the G4. Anyway, the cache on the G4 is higher on the high-end, 2mb of cache. But: the speed: 1.25Ghz? Can that really stand up to a P5 with 333mhz bus, and 3.2Ghz clock speeds? My opinion: most likely not.
Not to be criticle but the G4 does not have 2mb of L2 cache on the high end model it only has 256k. It does have 2mb of L3. The 1MB of L2 in my oppinion will be a lot faster then any L3 cache because it's accessed at full CPU speed. But we all know this doesn't really make a nickels worth of difference because we all know the current cpu at the current speed would be absolutely trounced by this new pentium. I also know feel that we will not be stuck at this slow progression of speed for the next year.
I personally though am in no way dissapointed in the new macs they are extremely fast. Yes faster then the Quicksilvers they just need to be used in the right application i.e. video editing, gaming, etc.. Anything that requires large amounts of data to be moved from the hard drive to the Ram and the same for the PCI and AGP cards to the Ram or Hard drive.
more...
WiiDSmoker
Mar 25, 10:27 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8F190)
When you release the kinds of game-chaining products that Apple does, I'm kind of inclined to look the other way. Why not. Apple's earned special treatment for the time being. That is, for the time being.
Might doesn't make right. But being exceedingly awesome, does.
I know it sounds unfair, but **** it. Apple's changed the entire conditions of the game.
What if I came along and stole all of Apples patents and used them in a way that were above and beyond anything Apple created with them?
You're thought process of this situation is completely horrible.
When you release the kinds of game-chaining products that Apple does, I'm kind of inclined to look the other way. Why not. Apple's earned special treatment for the time being. That is, for the time being.
Might doesn't make right. But being exceedingly awesome, does.
I know it sounds unfair, but **** it. Apple's changed the entire conditions of the game.
What if I came along and stole all of Apples patents and used them in a way that were above and beyond anything Apple created with them?
You're thought process of this situation is completely horrible.
madina
Nov 10, 02:59 PM
I don't believe I'd use this for payment. Well not if I had my debit card on me.
RFID Maybe useful for locating the device if it was stolen. Please Apple, can you render these small & expensive mobile devices useless if they are stolen?! It would deter thieves!
RFID Maybe useful for locating the device if it was stolen. Please Apple, can you render these small & expensive mobile devices useless if they are stolen?! It would deter thieves!
milo
Sep 19, 05:40 PM
Not everyone will want to install BOTH updates.
Why not? Some people may want to continue having either fan or startup issues?
What about a firmware update for the 24" iMac?
For what?
Why not? Some people may want to continue having either fan or startup issues?
What about a firmware update for the 24" iMac?
For what?
Westacular
Mar 23, 05:31 PM
While they're at it, why don't they just integrate the whole Apple TV GUI into the TV and get rid of the crappy TV GUIs?
Motorola ROKR.
It's conceivable that they'd license AirPlay because, well, on the display end, it's simple and doesn't involve an interface. It's like plugging in a screen or speakers, only wireless. But there's no way in hell Apple is going to leave any aspect of the rest of the "Apple TV" user experience in another manufacturer's hands. Not again, and not when they can sell the Apple TV for only $100. If the interface shows an Apple logo and lets your browse your iTunes library, it's going to be a 100% Apple product.
Motorola ROKR.
It's conceivable that they'd license AirPlay because, well, on the display end, it's simple and doesn't involve an interface. It's like plugging in a screen or speakers, only wireless. But there's no way in hell Apple is going to leave any aspect of the rest of the "Apple TV" user experience in another manufacturer's hands. Not again, and not when they can sell the Apple TV for only $100. If the interface shows an Apple logo and lets your browse your iTunes library, it's going to be a 100% Apple product.
joemama
Oct 26, 04:49 PM
Random yet related question:
What do people recommend using to record basic voiceovers in iMovie and FCExpress? My high school students currently use ProTools and Mbox and it's just way too complicated to record a simple voiceover.
What do people recommend using to record basic voiceovers in iMovie and FCExpress? My high school students currently use ProTools and Mbox and it's just way too complicated to record a simple voiceover.
gusnyc
Mar 31, 08:11 PM
I couldn't find where to click. I am using 3.2.6.
Supposedly the organizer will open after plugging the iPad, but it doesn't happen. What am I doing wrong?
Thanks for your answers.
Supposedly the organizer will open after plugging the iPad, but it doesn't happen. What am I doing wrong?
Thanks for your answers.
flopticalcube
Jun 18, 02:00 PM
I figured this out last night poking around in System Profiler on the new Mac Mini display unit in the local Apple Store. There was a new, separate entry for "Card Reader" that I hadn't seen before. Lo and behold, there it was, "SDXC", supporting 2.5GT/s (that's 2.5Gbps before taking into account the all the data transfer protocol overhead).
Doing some more poking, I found in the Ethernet section the fact that the new Minis use a Broadcom BCM57765 (http://www.broadcom.com/products/Ethernet-Controllers/Enterprise-Client/BCM57765) controller�which just happens to also include the memory card reader controller, which supports SDXC.
The ultimate transfer speed will depend on the card used. Some are a lot slower than others. Looks like the card reader was "free" with the ether controller. I can see this making sense on a laptop so you don't have to carry around an extra dongle but I would rather just have an extra USB on a desktop, especially since the damn thing is on the back.
Doing some more poking, I found in the Ethernet section the fact that the new Minis use a Broadcom BCM57765 (http://www.broadcom.com/products/Ethernet-Controllers/Enterprise-Client/BCM57765) controller�which just happens to also include the memory card reader controller, which supports SDXC.
The ultimate transfer speed will depend on the card used. Some are a lot slower than others. Looks like the card reader was "free" with the ether controller. I can see this making sense on a laptop so you don't have to carry around an extra dongle but I would rather just have an extra USB on a desktop, especially since the damn thing is on the back.
theBB
Sep 25, 10:52 PM
According to US law, a trademark holder MUST defend their trademarks, or they risk losing them. Google is struggling with this, as they're trying to encourage people not to use it as a generic verb.
Wikipedia Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Trademark)
I was going to point out that Bayer already lost Aspirin and Xerox came very close, but thanks for the link. Still, podcast is different enough compared to iPod that Apple is probably not at risk. However, "probably" is not the same as "definitely".
Wikipedia Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Trademark)
I was going to point out that Bayer already lost Aspirin and Xerox came very close, but thanks for the link. Still, podcast is different enough compared to iPod that Apple is probably not at risk. However, "probably" is not the same as "definitely".
No comments:
Post a Comment