840quadra
Apr 25, 03:42 PM
See, I have a very different opinion.
Apple has an image of things just working. Apple actively promotes this image. The image is includes the idea that people don't have to worry about the details, like security of their devices. Even for backups, Apple makes it so all you need to have full backups is plug in an $50 usb drive.
That said, looking at the iPhone the way it is intended to be used, it's an accessory of your computer. A mobile remote with limited access to the "main" computer. If we except that view point, then;
Beach Theme Wedding Thank You
Unique Wedding Gift Ideas
Thank you . What
Baby Keepsake: Blue Wedding
chocolate-gift-idea
Baby Keepsake: Yellow Wedding
Amazing Gift Idea: Morandini
Grandparents -Thank You
As a special thank-you for
thank you attendant gifts
Unique Wedding Favor Ideas
thank you gift ideas
A thank you for their travel,
Wedding Bible Verses. Are you
coffee lovers gift idea
thank you wedding gift
wedding gift ideas napa 1021
bridesmaid thank you gift
Apple has an image of things just working. Apple actively promotes this image. The image is includes the idea that people don't have to worry about the details, like security of their devices. Even for backups, Apple makes it so all you need to have full backups is plug in an $50 usb drive.
That said, looking at the iPhone the way it is intended to be used, it's an accessory of your computer. A mobile remote with limited access to the "main" computer. If we except that view point, then;
BoRegardless
Mar 26, 10:42 AM
OS evolution is like classifying cats by size.
Each one gets a bit bigger, but they are still cats.
The only time I would be excited, literally, about a MAJOR release is if they went to an OS which was slated to be described by Canines.
Then I would be reasonably assured something astounding was coming.
Each one gets a bit bigger, but they are still cats.
The only time I would be excited, literally, about a MAJOR release is if they went to an OS which was slated to be described by Canines.
Then I would be reasonably assured something astounding was coming.
NinjaHERO
Apr 25, 02:43 PM
Yet another reason for us to look at the "Loser Pays" legal system. Maybe it will stop some of this silliness.
funkyT80
Apr 6, 03:18 PM
Nice to see those small Mom and Pop tablet companies make there play too. :D
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.
0815
Apr 27, 08:50 AM
Maybe this will stop the large daily 1am data chunks being sent on 3G??? My most active time on 3G data always happens when I am asleep....:eek:
Sleep walking a lot lately?
Sleep walking a lot lately?
Zazaban
Aug 7, 08:42 PM
all the pictures i've seen of leopard show a unified interface :D
nagromme
Jul 14, 03:11 PM
Except Conroes don't support dual processor configuration. Woodcrest does, hence the reason it will be in the Pro line machines while Conroe is put into new iMacs.
Right, but I didn't say dual processors, I said dual cores.
I see no reason why ALL Pro machines need quad cores, when today's dual core G5s are FAR slower than that and still blaze through a lot of useful work! An all-quad pro lineup would be "cool" (and I seek a quad anyway, personally) but would simply add cost without justification, for many people.
In addition, if the new chips are supply-constrained at all having both Conroe and Woodcrest in the pro towers could help. (And the iMac does fine with Yonah for a while if need be--which seems likely to happen to me.)
Right, but I didn't say dual processors, I said dual cores.
I see no reason why ALL Pro machines need quad cores, when today's dual core G5s are FAR slower than that and still blaze through a lot of useful work! An all-quad pro lineup would be "cool" (and I seek a quad anyway, personally) but would simply add cost without justification, for many people.
In addition, if the new chips are supply-constrained at all having both Conroe and Woodcrest in the pro towers could help. (And the iMac does fine with Yonah for a while if need be--which seems likely to happen to me.)
suneohair
Sep 13, 06:05 PM
Sorry to burst your reality distortion field, but see my previous post. I ran a dual processor Pentium II NT setup ten years ago and Windows handled it just fine THEN -- back when Apple barely supported it with a hack to its cooperatively-multitasked OS and required specially written applications with special library support.
BTW my 2 year old Smithfield handles 4 processors fine (Dual Core Pentium Extreme with hyperthreading = 4 cores).
The only limit with Windows is they keep the low end XP home to 2 processors on the same die. There is probably an architectural limit on both OSX and XP and if it's not 8 it's 16. It's probably 8.
Didn't you get the memo, Hyperthreading was a joke.
On to this post. The current Mac Pro is not going to be upgraded. Nor will Quad be making its debut, at least at the current price points, anytime soon. It may be offered as a very expensive upgrade but thats about it looking ahead a year.
So for those who bought now, it was a good choice. When the time comes and cost is low they can take that next step and upgrade.
BTW my 2 year old Smithfield handles 4 processors fine (Dual Core Pentium Extreme with hyperthreading = 4 cores).
The only limit with Windows is they keep the low end XP home to 2 processors on the same die. There is probably an architectural limit on both OSX and XP and if it's not 8 it's 16. It's probably 8.
Didn't you get the memo, Hyperthreading was a joke.
On to this post. The current Mac Pro is not going to be upgraded. Nor will Quad be making its debut, at least at the current price points, anytime soon. It may be offered as a very expensive upgrade but thats about it looking ahead a year.
So for those who bought now, it was a good choice. When the time comes and cost is low they can take that next step and upgrade.
M-O
Apr 25, 01:35 PM
wow, this has officially been blown out of proportion!
GQB
Mar 31, 05:07 PM
This is a smart move. It had to happen sooner or later.
John Gruber would ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Wow... classless AND wrong at the same time. Care to go for the hat trick and throw in 'fanboi' too?
John Gruber would ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Wow... classless AND wrong at the same time. Care to go for the hat trick and throw in 'fanboi' too?
guzhogi
Jul 14, 07:16 PM
Power supplies produce a lot of heat. It makes great sense according to simply the most basic laws of thermodynamics.
I'm no physicist, but even I know that warmer air rises so if the power supply was at the bottom, all that heat would go up the entire case (not counting whatever fans are in there) and make it harder to cool maybe. But as I said, I'm no physicist & I don't know how all this all works. It would be cool (pun not intended) if it were possible to create a vacuum inside, that woould help solve heating issues since (if I remember my high school physics) temperature is just how much energy matter has. If there's no matter in the case other than the components, then it should be pretty cold in there.
I'm no physicist, but even I know that warmer air rises so if the power supply was at the bottom, all that heat would go up the entire case (not counting whatever fans are in there) and make it harder to cool maybe. But as I said, I'm no physicist & I don't know how all this all works. It would be cool (pun not intended) if it were possible to create a vacuum inside, that woould help solve heating issues since (if I remember my high school physics) temperature is just how much energy matter has. If there's no matter in the case other than the components, then it should be pretty cold in there.
heisetax
Jul 14, 03:43 PM
This is good news for me.. it will make it easy to resist buying one this year. No 3ghz xeon, no bluray, no new case design.
This means that the 2.7 GHz G5 of a year ago or more would still be a high for CPU speeds for the PowerMac/MacPro line. We already have dual dual 2.5 GHz G5 a year ago. An increase to 2.66 GHz means that either 2008 or 2009 we will see the promised 3 GHz PowerMac/MacPro.
Any bets on which year it will be?
Bill the TaxMan
This means that the 2.7 GHz G5 of a year ago or more would still be a high for CPU speeds for the PowerMac/MacPro line. We already have dual dual 2.5 GHz G5 a year ago. An increase to 2.66 GHz means that either 2008 or 2009 we will see the promised 3 GHz PowerMac/MacPro.
Any bets on which year it will be?
Bill the TaxMan
cjoy
Apr 25, 02:47 PM
Maybe I'm missing something, but so what if they can tell what cell phone tower you're by??? Are you really so important/ secrative that someone knowing your location is that big of a deal?
it looks like a different world from today,
but really it's less than 70 years ago that we had the NAZI regime here in germany. it's less than 25 years ago that we had an repressive surveillance society in east germany. if there is no apparent good in tracking personal data, one should object to it.
you shouldn't have to reason against collecting and storing personal data if it isnt a real necessity.
there's enough data stored about you, me and anyone in todays digitalized world as is.
it looks like a different world from today,
but really it's less than 70 years ago that we had the NAZI regime here in germany. it's less than 25 years ago that we had an repressive surveillance society in east germany. if there is no apparent good in tracking personal data, one should object to it.
you shouldn't have to reason against collecting and storing personal data if it isnt a real necessity.
there's enough data stored about you, me and anyone in todays digitalized world as is.
MrChurchyard
Apr 6, 11:48 AM
I bet you that you'll never see a iPad with screen resolution like 2048x1536, it's a ****ing nightmare to iOS developers. You don't understand that it's ****ing crazy, iOS interface like MacOS X interface is not scalable. Apple have to change the whole GUI before making this step forward. You know why there is much smaller apps for Android OS that for iOS? Because Adnroid devices have tons of screen resolutions and every ****ing vendor think that this is better but they kill platform with tons of resolutions, it's hard for developers to make apps compatible with all resolutions, again GUI problem.
Not at all. It's pretty obvious that a future iteration of the iPad will have a 2048x1536 resolution, being exactly twice the current resolution. It will be just like they did for the iPhone with the Retina Display.
And it's extremely easy for devs to make a Retina Display enabled app. Actually you don't even have to touch the code (*) at all and just drop in the images at twice the resolution into the assets. Everything else is handled by the OS automatically. Text etc. is scaled appropriately anyway, and if you have the @2x versions of the images used, it will use those instead of the single res versions.
So no, no dev nightmare, no changing of the whole GUI, nothing of the sort.
____
(*)= for devs - yeah, I know about the �imageWithContentsOfFile" bug that won't load the @2x versions ;)
Not at all. It's pretty obvious that a future iteration of the iPad will have a 2048x1536 resolution, being exactly twice the current resolution. It will be just like they did for the iPhone with the Retina Display.
And it's extremely easy for devs to make a Retina Display enabled app. Actually you don't even have to touch the code (*) at all and just drop in the images at twice the resolution into the assets. Everything else is handled by the OS automatically. Text etc. is scaled appropriately anyway, and if you have the @2x versions of the images used, it will use those instead of the single res versions.
So no, no dev nightmare, no changing of the whole GUI, nothing of the sort.
____
(*)= for devs - yeah, I know about the �imageWithContentsOfFile" bug that won't load the @2x versions ;)
torbjoern
Mar 1, 04:18 PM
But they are treated equal, any gay man can marry a woman and any lesbian woman can marry a man just as any heterosexual man can marry a woman and any heterosexual woman can marry a man
He he, I simply love this. How come I have never thought of it myself? So simple yet brilliant at the same time! (-:
He he, I simply love this. How come I have never thought of it myself? So simple yet brilliant at the same time! (-:
funkyT80
Apr 6, 03:18 PM
Nice to see those small Mom and Pop tablet companies make there play too. :D
ifjake
Nov 29, 12:25 AM
here's my 2� without reading the rest of the thread:
maybe if they set aside the funds for cultivating new, compellingly good music from upandcoming artists. kinda like how the big movie studios own independent-esque branches. something nice. something a little more risky than your usual cookie-cutter pop-hit. i dunno maybe that's already there sort of. maybe.
maybe if they set aside the funds for cultivating new, compellingly good music from upandcoming artists. kinda like how the big movie studios own independent-esque branches. something nice. something a little more risky than your usual cookie-cutter pop-hit. i dunno maybe that's already there sort of. maybe.
Lesser Evets
Mar 26, 08:21 AM
Please release OS X Lion on a cool Apple flash drive :cool:
Seriously. When will this optical media finally begin to die?
You can buy a 4GB flash drive for under $4 these days. I'm sure Apple can work that into the price of the OS for another $2 or so. When flash drives of 4GB are under $1, I expect an exodus from these mechanical pieces of junk.
Lion will be just a mere touch of make-up and a few changes towards making the experience of the newest and most profitable business of Apple... AppStore.
I haven't seen anything in the preview of Lion that comes close to being a necessary addition or even a "wow". So I agree with you: it's a way to sell Apps better. Their OS'x have been disappointing for years. I will probably end any new OS purchases with Snow Leopard, until I get a new computer in 4 years.
Seriously. When will this optical media finally begin to die?
You can buy a 4GB flash drive for under $4 these days. I'm sure Apple can work that into the price of the OS for another $2 or so. When flash drives of 4GB are under $1, I expect an exodus from these mechanical pieces of junk.
Lion will be just a mere touch of make-up and a few changes towards making the experience of the newest and most profitable business of Apple... AppStore.
I haven't seen anything in the preview of Lion that comes close to being a necessary addition or even a "wow". So I agree with you: it's a way to sell Apps better. Their OS'x have been disappointing for years. I will probably end any new OS purchases with Snow Leopard, until I get a new computer in 4 years.
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
toolbox
Mar 26, 06:33 AM
Good stuff, waiting and ready to pay! :o
Same! soon as available for pre order / order
Same! soon as available for pre order / order
manu chao
Aug 27, 05:31 AM
You're screwing up, intel. We don't want 300 trillion transistors on a 1 nm die. We want longer battery life. Idiots.
Don't blame Intel, blame Apple for not using the ULV versions of the Core Duo chips. There are other manufacturers which use them (otherwise it would not make much sense for Intel to offer them).
However, the battery life of these machines is maybe in the order of six hours only, for once because the screen, HD etc. still need the same amount of power. Making the screen smaller, using Intel graphics, maybe even a 1.8" HD, you can reduce power consumption further, most often manufacturers also reduce battery size at the same time to make the laptops lightweight, preventing you to see battery life numbers of ten hours.
Moreover, reports about machines using the ULV versions (and sometimes 1.8" HDs) do complain about the performance.
Don't blame Intel, blame Apple for not using the ULV versions of the Core Duo chips. There are other manufacturers which use them (otherwise it would not make much sense for Intel to offer them).
However, the battery life of these machines is maybe in the order of six hours only, for once because the screen, HD etc. still need the same amount of power. Making the screen smaller, using Intel graphics, maybe even a 1.8" HD, you can reduce power consumption further, most often manufacturers also reduce battery size at the same time to make the laptops lightweight, preventing you to see battery life numbers of ten hours.
Moreover, reports about machines using the ULV versions (and sometimes 1.8" HDs) do complain about the performance.
ergle2
Sep 19, 09:56 PM
This intel crap updates far too frequently...ugh
:mad:
Speaking personally, I don't see a problem with it.
They've always had updates roughly every 3-6 months, of one kind or another.
:mad:
Speaking personally, I don't see a problem with it.
They've always had updates roughly every 3-6 months, of one kind or another.
cult hero
Mar 26, 03:59 PM
Details found here :
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-removes-Samba-from-Mac-OS-X-10-7-Server-1215179.html
Gist of it :
- less features than Samba
- no more Active Directory Services
- Just file sharing now.
Samba developers have also noted that the true motive behind this move might not be the GPLv3 per say, but a more global move away from the GPL. Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Anyway, Samba v4 could have given them all the "features" they implemented and much more. Their own in-house version won't necessarily be better just because it's written by Apple. The Samba team does a great job with what Microsoft puts out as documentation (if you can even call it that).
Note that from the article, this change only impacts OS X Server. The client was already an in-house solution.
Ick. None of that is good news. Although their current implementation of Samba is old anyway. Things aren't going to get worse... they're just not going to get any better. That's a bummer.
Looks like I'll continue using Linux for my domain controllers then. (Not that I take issue with this.)
Personally, I think it's GPL3. Apple isn't the only company reacting negatively to it. Who knows though? I certainly don't.
On the upside that means Apple won't advertise that their server will work as a domain controller anymore which they do now despite the fact that nowhere do they say, "Hey, only old NT4 style domains that don't work for modern Windows clients."
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-removes-Samba-from-Mac-OS-X-10-7-Server-1215179.html
Gist of it :
- less features than Samba
- no more Active Directory Services
- Just file sharing now.
Samba developers have also noted that the true motive behind this move might not be the GPLv3 per say, but a more global move away from the GPL. Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Anyway, Samba v4 could have given them all the "features" they implemented and much more. Their own in-house version won't necessarily be better just because it's written by Apple. The Samba team does a great job with what Microsoft puts out as documentation (if you can even call it that).
Note that from the article, this change only impacts OS X Server. The client was already an in-house solution.
Ick. None of that is good news. Although their current implementation of Samba is old anyway. Things aren't going to get worse... they're just not going to get any better. That's a bummer.
Looks like I'll continue using Linux for my domain controllers then. (Not that I take issue with this.)
Personally, I think it's GPL3. Apple isn't the only company reacting negatively to it. Who knows though? I certainly don't.
On the upside that means Apple won't advertise that their server will work as a domain controller anymore which they do now despite the fact that nowhere do they say, "Hey, only old NT4 style domains that don't work for modern Windows clients."
No comments:
Post a Comment