shawnce
Aug 6, 02:45 PM
So to post my top bets for WWDC...
1) A much clearer roadmap for 64 bit support in Mac OS X. I believe they will outline full 64 bit support across all non-10.4 deprecated frameworks (I believe in the initial release of 10.5). Of course it will also fully support 32 bit applications run side by side with 64 bit applications.
2) Resolution Independent UI will be ready for main stream use with display products possible with in the next year or two (would love to be surprised with 150-200 DPI or so display of course).
3) Quartz 2D Extreme will be ready for main stream use along with some good news on the OpenGL front.
4) Full roll out of the unified user interface look and fell across all frameworks and Apple applications (at least most).
5) Improved Quartz API to allow for more advanced window styles and effects.
6) PowerMac replacement with Quad core model... a true workstation class system (likely similar enclosure to what we have now in the PMG5).
... gotta go.
1) A much clearer roadmap for 64 bit support in Mac OS X. I believe they will outline full 64 bit support across all non-10.4 deprecated frameworks (I believe in the initial release of 10.5). Of course it will also fully support 32 bit applications run side by side with 64 bit applications.
2) Resolution Independent UI will be ready for main stream use with display products possible with in the next year or two (would love to be surprised with 150-200 DPI or so display of course).
3) Quartz 2D Extreme will be ready for main stream use along with some good news on the OpenGL front.
4) Full roll out of the unified user interface look and fell across all frameworks and Apple applications (at least most).
5) Improved Quartz API to allow for more advanced window styles and effects.
6) PowerMac replacement with Quad core model... a true workstation class system (likely similar enclosure to what we have now in the PMG5).
... gotta go.
pdpfilms
Aug 11, 10:37 AM
"...Earlier than some may be expecting"??
Wasn't everyone expecting this a year ago?
Wasn't everyone expecting this a year ago?
jaxstate
Aug 11, 02:43 PM
My phone just happens to work in europe, but I wouldn't care if it didn't.
A phone that works in most of the world is better for many of us. Who wants a phone that won't work in Europe for instance?
A phone that works in most of the world is better for many of us. Who wants a phone that won't work in Europe for instance?
DesmoPilot
Aug 9, 09:00 PM
i have never heard of SimBin, but looking at the website, it doesn't look bad. do any of their games work in Mac OS X?
Nope, just Windows unfortunately.
Nope, just Windows unfortunately.
milo
Jul 27, 03:39 PM
It's always a little alarming when a post starts "sorry if I missed it but..."
This is a positively thoughtless remark. No one's cheering the MHz myth on, in fact, Intel itself has abandoned the concept. Until the 3Ghz woodies get dropped in a MacPro, the 2.7 GHZ G5 will still be the fastest chip ever put in a Macintosh. I have a dual core Pentium D in a bastard Mac at the house, it runs at 3.8 GHz. I'm pretty sure that even it is slower in a lot of areas than these Core 2's. So no, you're absolutely wrong, the MHz myth is all but dead.
The 2.7 G5 will be the highest clocked chip in a mac for a while, but probably not the fastest. In a number of benchmarks, Yonah has already beaten dual G5's, the conroes and woodrests will likely widen the gap even more.
This is a positively thoughtless remark. No one's cheering the MHz myth on, in fact, Intel itself has abandoned the concept. Until the 3Ghz woodies get dropped in a MacPro, the 2.7 GHZ G5 will still be the fastest chip ever put in a Macintosh. I have a dual core Pentium D in a bastard Mac at the house, it runs at 3.8 GHz. I'm pretty sure that even it is slower in a lot of areas than these Core 2's. So no, you're absolutely wrong, the MHz myth is all but dead.
The 2.7 G5 will be the highest clocked chip in a mac for a while, but probably not the fastest. In a number of benchmarks, Yonah has already beaten dual G5's, the conroes and woodrests will likely widen the gap even more.
maclaptop
Apr 19, 03:26 PM
Pssstt... I think it already is a religion to many.
So True...
Poor lost souls rely on Steve to think for them, bring them courage, and guide them in worship.
Anyone who fails to fall in line, is immediately a threat to them.
It's this weakness is laughable.
So True...
Poor lost souls rely on Steve to think for them, bring them courage, and guide them in worship.
Anyone who fails to fall in line, is immediately a threat to them.
It's this weakness is laughable.
heisetax
Jul 14, 04:16 PM
That's nice...
They'd better have something in between this and the iMac...
Apple has had an inbetween model for a long time. Low end where models change more often compared to a so called high end where a good model is made, then only minor changes are made every year or so. High end clock speed will still be down after 2 years. It sounds to me that Apple makes a high end then allows it to slide to a middle ground, ownly they forget to lower the price to mid ground.
The new Intel Macs are supposed to be top end again, so that means a general accross the board price increases. The price increases must mean we are getting a new high end product. Just wait a couple of generations & we'll have a mid-range Mac.
Bill the TaxMan
They'd better have something in between this and the iMac...
Apple has had an inbetween model for a long time. Low end where models change more often compared to a so called high end where a good model is made, then only minor changes are made every year or so. High end clock speed will still be down after 2 years. It sounds to me that Apple makes a high end then allows it to slide to a middle ground, ownly they forget to lower the price to mid ground.
The new Intel Macs are supposed to be top end again, so that means a general accross the board price increases. The price increases must mean we are getting a new high end product. Just wait a couple of generations & we'll have a mid-range Mac.
Bill the TaxMan
asleep
Apr 7, 10:55 PM
Big Brother much?
ten-oak-druid
Apr 19, 09:01 PM
I remember when the ipad 2 was announced. A samsung CEO said "we're going to have to rethink our copy of the ipad." Very innovative.
glassbathroom
Jul 28, 03:18 AM
It absolutely will!!! Leopard is just going to be mostly beneficial for dual-core machines. Read this article:
http://macosrumors.com/20060710A1.php
Leopard sounds FAST!
MOSR is always good for a laugh, but don't be fooled into believing any of it.
http://macosrumors.com/20060710A1.php
Leopard sounds FAST!
MOSR is always good for a laugh, but don't be fooled into believing any of it.
bretm
Jul 20, 10:45 AM
My first job as a graphic designer I used an enhanced SE/30 (with 20" external monitor). About a year later we upgraded to the Quadras, so I guess that makes me #5?
I think I used a SE 25 with a 12" monitor.
I also remember the first mac I purchased was the cheapest PowerMac they had. I remember upgrading the RAM from 8mb to 16mb and it cost over $300 for that 8mb chip!
I think I used a SE 25 with a 12" monitor.
I also remember the first mac I purchased was the cheapest PowerMac they had. I remember upgrading the RAM from 8mb to 16mb and it cost over $300 for that 8mb chip!
dgree03
Apr 6, 02:45 PM
You list ONE issue with the iPad, that it looks too much like the iPhone, and then go on to a laundry list of issues on the Xoom that culminates in a tech support call and THAT is your preferred device?
Rock on winner. I have a bridge I want to sell you.
If you want I can give you a laundry list of things wrong with the ipad.. it will surely be longer than my xoom cons?
Rock on winner. I have a bridge I want to sell you.
If you want I can give you a laundry list of things wrong with the ipad.. it will surely be longer than my xoom cons?
Amazing Iceman
Apr 7, 10:50 PM
Don't be a troll :rolleyes:
Obviously you know little about trolls... :D (JK!)
Obviously you know little about trolls... :D (JK!)
Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 6, 10:27 AM
This is what I've been waiting for. Apple is about to get a chunk of my bank account lol. Upgrading from an early 2008 MBP
ezekielrage_99
Sep 18, 11:27 PM
Is it happening on a tuesday, perchance? :D
G5 PowerBooks next tuesday :confused:
:D
G5 PowerBooks next tuesday :confused:
:D
Evangelion
Jul 15, 10:37 AM
1) This is all rumour and speculation...
2) At the price that OEMs charge for memory, less RAM is better. We can fill it with whatever we pick.
Let's see.... If I could choose between two identical compter, one having 512MB of RAM and costing $1799, and the other having 1GB of RAM and costing $1799, I should buy the one with less RAM because then I could "pick my own RAM"?
And do I have to remind you that Woodcrests use FB-DIMM RAM, and those aren't really available that widely yet.
2) At the price that OEMs charge for memory, less RAM is better. We can fill it with whatever we pick.
Let's see.... If I could choose between two identical compter, one having 512MB of RAM and costing $1799, and the other having 1GB of RAM and costing $1799, I should buy the one with less RAM because then I could "pick my own RAM"?
And do I have to remind you that Woodcrests use FB-DIMM RAM, and those aren't really available that widely yet.
aegisdesign
Sep 13, 12:05 PM
Also, the iMac is a 32-bit computer, and these are 64-bit chips, reducing any possiblity to zero.
Only the Yonah based Core Duo iMacs are 32bit (Well, and the G3/G4 too). G5 and the new iMac Core 2 Duo models on sale now are 64bit. Not that it matters per se.
Only the Yonah based Core Duo iMacs are 32bit (Well, and the G3/G4 too). G5 and the new iMac Core 2 Duo models on sale now are 64bit. Not that it matters per se.
orkle
Nov 29, 08:45 AM
Just goes to show you how corrupt the music business really is!:mad:
And how little the average user actually knows about it.
And how little the average user actually knows about it.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
guzhogi
Nov 29, 01:16 PM
Just thought of something, maybe Apple could charge the record company for each song released by means of "Oh, you used a Mac to make this song. Give us this amount of money for each copy of the song you sell."
Viggy
Aug 27, 07:07 PM
HI!
Anyone knows if jointly with this rumor is the rumor of the upgrade of graphic cards on MacBook (not Pro) to Intel GMA 965 (I think is this the reference...)?
Thanks!
Anyone knows if jointly with this rumor is the rumor of the upgrade of graphic cards on MacBook (not Pro) to Intel GMA 965 (I think is this the reference...)?
Thanks!
rdowns
Apr 27, 02:10 PM
OK, let's move onto Obama's grades. When Obama caves and releases those, citing more important issues we need to deal with, the press will then go after his professors and classmates. What else will the wingnuts ask for?
iVoid
Apr 27, 11:24 AM
Well, I think it's good that Apple is addressing this issue (although I wonder if they'll release an update for the 3G, since they are no longer doing iOS upgrades for it and the original iPhone).
But their statement: "The iPhone is not logging your location" is ridiculous. They are logging your location. For a long time. In an insecure way.
Outside of the PR butt saving double-speak, this is a good move by Apple to address this issue.
But their statement: "The iPhone is not logging your location" is ridiculous. They are logging your location. For a long time. In an insecure way.
Outside of the PR butt saving double-speak, this is a good move by Apple to address this issue.
tny
Jul 20, 09:06 AM
I got it!
The Macintosh Quadra!
No, wait . . . .
;)
You realize there are probably only four people on this board who are old enough to get that joke, right?
My "vote" goes for "Hex" - "The Mac Hex. Buy one and see." Then again, maybe not.
The Macintosh Quadra!
No, wait . . . .
;)
You realize there are probably only four people on this board who are old enough to get that joke, right?
My "vote" goes for "Hex" - "The Mac Hex. Buy one and see." Then again, maybe not.
No comments:
Post a Comment