pmz
Mar 24, 07:34 AM
Defense budget is already ridiculous and embarrassing.
AppleMc
Mar 11, 11:02 AM
We are 12th and 13th at Willow Bend. We are currently at the end of the line. There is a roped off area and they are saying LIMIT TWO PER PERSON.
How's the Willow Bend line looking now?
How's the Willow Bend line looking now?
nosen
Sep 25, 10:50 AM
Sweet. When is it available? Did I miss that? :confused:
scratch that--looks like its available this week.
scratch that--looks like its available this week.
AppleInLVX
Apr 19, 11:47 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb and postulate that the next release won't be iOS5, nor will the next phone be iPhone 5. Reason being, as someone already stated in the forums a few days ago, this release is more likely to be iterative--evolutionary, not revolutionary. The new design of iPhone 4 will stand, and the only changes outwardly might be the screen. Everything else is inside.
I think '5' is a catchy number, and Apple will reserve it for the 2012 iPhone. We'll see a whole new, magical iOS5 and with it, iPhone 5! Dun, dun, duuuuun!!! (or should I say, BOOM!)
I think you'll see iOS4.5 with all these cool little tweaks to the UI (and I REALLY hope improvements to notifications), and the new iPhone 4NS (New Screen or some such) in September.
I think '5' is a catchy number, and Apple will reserve it for the 2012 iPhone. We'll see a whole new, magical iOS5 and with it, iPhone 5! Dun, dun, duuuuun!!! (or should I say, BOOM!)
I think you'll see iOS4.5 with all these cool little tweaks to the UI (and I REALLY hope improvements to notifications), and the new iPhone 4NS (New Screen or some such) in September.
more...
dcv
Nov 14, 08:40 AM
"Mummy, why is that man watching those naked people doing things to each other." :p
LMAO, Post of the Week� :D
LMAO, Post of the Week� :D
patrickkidd
May 2, 04:29 PM
Seriously, can we all take a step back and just breathe for a second? Is the thickness of a phone really that big of a deal? And I thought a re-release of a different color was already inane enough...
more...
zap2
Oct 9, 03:24 PM
If true, this is bad...Apple needs to get people who make movies on board, with pressure from Walmart and Target, movies companys might not come over as quickly, and they really are selling well from what Disney says!
anonymous6237
Mar 11, 09:04 AM
We are 12th and 13th at Willow Bend. We are currently at the end of the line. There is a roped off area and they are saying LIMIT TWO PER PERSON.
Thanks for the Willow Bend update. I'm planning on heading over around 1:30 and hope to not be too far back in line.
Thanks for the Willow Bend update. I'm planning on heading over around 1:30 and hope to not be too far back in line.
more...
Number 41
Apr 21, 02:08 PM
That sounds good enough to me and the millions who will buy it.
There isn't a single added feature listed there to make it worth the extra ~$100 to get a new iPhone instead of the identical iPhone 4 at discount.
There isn't a single added feature listed there to make it worth the extra ~$100 to get a new iPhone instead of the identical iPhone 4 at discount.
pacmania1982
Apr 2, 04:38 AM
I put �20 in the car yesterday, and paid �1.31.9 per liter. Working that out with the exchange rate, I'm paying about $7.75 per US gallon. It currently costs me about �50 ($78) to fill my tank, and I get about 300 miles out of it. I do ~250 miles a week.
pac
pac
more...
peharri
Aug 14, 02:54 PM
I disagree totally. People buy superiority. Thats what a good portion of the population wants. Thats why peop;le buy designer clothes. Thats why people buy fancy cars. Thats why people buy expensive jewelery. Thats why people stay at 5 star hotels. People want to feel like they are better than everyone else or they've made better choices.
Not everyone of course. But there are alot.
How is the above disagreeing with me? You're saying people like to feel like they've bought superiority. And yet here's Apple coming along telling everyone that they haven't. Not only that they haven't, but that their choice was bad for a lot of reasons that, quite honestly, are untrue and that the buyers know are untrue.
Now, of course, you could be saying that Apple should sell itself as the superior platform. But that doesn't require being insulting to do that. You can easily say "These are the benefits of Macintosh" without saying "...and anyone who doesn't buy one is a gray, boring, clone." Just as my game example: you want the "Blues" to feel that it's worth going to the Red stadium because they will have a good time. Because they will see a quality game. You'll not get them there if you insult their team. If you ridicule their choices. If you ridicule them.
I've met too many people who find Apple's ads insulting and contrary to their own experience to believe that these ads are helping them in any way. Right now, Apple can sell itself as a great platform. Instead, it chooses to alienate its target audience. That's bad.
Not everyone of course. But there are alot.
How is the above disagreeing with me? You're saying people like to feel like they've bought superiority. And yet here's Apple coming along telling everyone that they haven't. Not only that they haven't, but that their choice was bad for a lot of reasons that, quite honestly, are untrue and that the buyers know are untrue.
Now, of course, you could be saying that Apple should sell itself as the superior platform. But that doesn't require being insulting to do that. You can easily say "These are the benefits of Macintosh" without saying "...and anyone who doesn't buy one is a gray, boring, clone." Just as my game example: you want the "Blues" to feel that it's worth going to the Red stadium because they will have a good time. Because they will see a quality game. You'll not get them there if you insult their team. If you ridicule their choices. If you ridicule them.
I've met too many people who find Apple's ads insulting and contrary to their own experience to believe that these ads are helping them in any way. Right now, Apple can sell itself as a great platform. Instead, it chooses to alienate its target audience. That's bad.
Detrius
Apr 13, 08:51 AM
It's highly unlikely that "unused programs" are what's slowing your system down. What's far more likely is a bad hard drive. We're not talking about Windows here--you're not likely to have a bunch of rogue processes running in the background chewing up all of your processor time.
Open up Console.app and look through the logs. If you're running 10.5 or older, check /var/log/system.log. On 10.6, check /var/log/kernel.log. Look for something like this:
disk0s2: I/O error
That would be indicative of a failing hard drive.
Open up Console.app and look through the logs. If you're running 10.5 or older, check /var/log/system.log. On 10.6, check /var/log/kernel.log. Look for something like this:
disk0s2: I/O error
That would be indicative of a failing hard drive.
more...
jettredmont
Nov 21, 07:42 PM
600 Fahrenheit.... nah.... nothing gets that hot.
600 Kelvin. whats that like 40 degress celsius. Nope.... 330 Celsius. :eek: Wow thats a lot
But not as much as 600 CELSIUS :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Maybe he invented a system. :rolleyes:
600F : Melting Point of Cadmium.
600K: Melting Point of Lead.
600C: Melting point of Aluminum (so thats why Apple switched from Titanium).
Maybe 600 Rankine? That's only 140F, so at least a reasonable Earth-bound/non-vaporizing-your-skin temperature ...
600 Kelvin. whats that like 40 degress celsius. Nope.... 330 Celsius. :eek: Wow thats a lot
But not as much as 600 CELSIUS :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Maybe he invented a system. :rolleyes:
600F : Melting Point of Cadmium.
600K: Melting Point of Lead.
600C: Melting point of Aluminum (so thats why Apple switched from Titanium).
Maybe 600 Rankine? That's only 140F, so at least a reasonable Earth-bound/non-vaporizing-your-skin temperature ...
mdelvecchio
Apr 19, 11:18 AM
Anything beats the embarrassment that Apple has in the current iOS.
how do you mean, specifically? neither me, my gf, or my dad have ever had an opportunity to bemoan this functionality. how does it impair our ability or cause us embarrassment?
how do you mean, specifically? neither me, my gf, or my dad have ever had an opportunity to bemoan this functionality. how does it impair our ability or cause us embarrassment?
more...
apolloa
Apr 21, 02:13 PM
So as we all know we'll get the A5 chip but don't know what clock speeds, we will get a design much like the iPhone 4 which IMO is fantastic news, a pretty much confirmed 8mpx camera unit from Sony which again is just fantastic news, so long as Apple have learnt to protect the lens a bit!!
And we are all expecting to have 64gb version and lets hope the 32gb takes the place and price point of the 16gb.
And now this brilliant news, and I am going to state I bet one of those developers is Gameloft and I bet it's developing it's Unreal Engine based game for it!!!! Black Ops running on the iPhone 5 and Unreal Engine anyone? Sounds truthful to me :)
I'm thinking the next iPhone will be a keeper for a few years, well 2 anyway haha.
And we are all expecting to have 64gb version and lets hope the 32gb takes the place and price point of the 16gb.
And now this brilliant news, and I am going to state I bet one of those developers is Gameloft and I bet it's developing it's Unreal Engine based game for it!!!! Black Ops running on the iPhone 5 and Unreal Engine anyone? Sounds truthful to me :)
I'm thinking the next iPhone will be a keeper for a few years, well 2 anyway haha.
toddybody
Mar 23, 01:39 PM
The only ATV i like is made by Yamaha.
more...
Giaguara
Sep 17, 03:47 AM
Be (the positive side of) yourself and just try.
I'm really bad in advising for pickup lines etc so just say something nice to start with. ;)
I'm really bad in advising for pickup lines etc so just say something nice to start with. ;)
Millah
May 2, 03:54 PM
I don't know if Macrumors just got the labeling mixed up on those cameras, but the camera lens on the right that's inside the phone is the exact same camera sensor that I have in my launch day black iPhone 4. I've taken it apart several times and know that camera well. The one on the left (which MR labeled to be from a black iPhone) is the lens thatnis new to me.
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).
SwiftLives
Apr 9, 03:03 AM
I am not saying no one should produce children. I am just saying its not the job of the government to make sure people are only cranking out units when they are "ready". Its called personal responsibility. If you get knocked up, deal with it. It's usually your own fault. Maybe your parents should have taught you to keep your pants on. It's not up the the government to teach you these things.
So...a human child is nothing more than a "consequence"?
So...a human child is nothing more than a "consequence"?
SteveSparks
Mar 26, 06:43 PM
Ya. Page 1..
This is a good rumor thread....
This is a good rumor thread....
notjustjay
May 5, 10:52 AM
I like how they compare the 11" MacBook Air to a variety of Atom netbooks.
jowie
Apr 20, 07:51 AM
What's all the talk of an all-white home button in the first video? I've seen it and I can see a square on the button. It looks like the same phone in both videos to me.
razzmatazz
Oct 10, 07:51 AM
Exactly! That's why the iMacs didn't get the Intel procssors until 7 months after the Mac Pros, right?
Well the reason for that is because Apple was waiting for the Xeon "Woodcrest" processors to put into the Mac Pro. A Core Duo in a Mac Pro...I don't think so.
Well the reason for that is because Apple was waiting for the Xeon "Woodcrest" processors to put into the Mac Pro. A Core Duo in a Mac Pro...I don't think so.