NY Guitarist
Apr 6, 09:54 PM
Apple should forget intel and put a quad-core A6 chip in the MacBook Air. Re-architecture Mac OS to run on ARM (OS Xi) and rule the world.
I think this is a very smart direction to be going.
I think this is a very smart direction to be going.
dethmaShine
Apr 19, 02:36 PM
You're wrong. Apple is losing marketshare for over 2 years now. Just because they are selling MORE iPhones doesn't mean they are gaining marketshare. The market grows much faster than the iPhone sales. Have a look at Nokia: In Q4/10 Nokia sold almost 7 million more smartphones but they lost about 10% marketshare. In Q1/11 Apple lost about 2% marketshare despite the fact that they sold about 2.5 million more iPhones.
Ya right. :rolleyes:
Ya right. :rolleyes:
ghostlyorb
Mar 22, 08:10 PM
So they finally are matching the iPad's pricing.. too bad they don't offer the same functionality...
MattSepeta
Mar 23, 02:09 PM
If you are supporting non-intervention, than I disagree. I support the notion that the UN (using member-nations' pooled military or civilian assets) should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions.
With that being said, the UN has many flaws and I am not satisfied with the way things are done. But I do feel that intervention is sometimes necessary, if imperfect.
That is totally reasonable and understandable, although I do disagree. I can't with good heart support sending my neighbors son/daughter overseas to fight for another people.
I just find it pretty disgusting when we have the VP going on the record talking out his arse about "Unless we are attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked", then a couple years later nary a peep when we start bombing a foreign country that is not even close to a threat to us. Did Biden qualify it with a " we should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions." NOPE!
Now THAT is a classic "When my guy does it it is ok."
With that being said, the UN has many flaws and I am not satisfied with the way things are done. But I do feel that intervention is sometimes necessary, if imperfect.
That is totally reasonable and understandable, although I do disagree. I can't with good heart support sending my neighbors son/daughter overseas to fight for another people.
I just find it pretty disgusting when we have the VP going on the record talking out his arse about "Unless we are attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked", then a couple years later nary a peep when we start bombing a foreign country that is not even close to a threat to us. Did Biden qualify it with a " we should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions." NOPE!
Now THAT is a classic "When my guy does it it is ok."
TallGuy1970
Mar 31, 04:20 PM
Maybe, just maybe, Steve jobs knows a bit about computing. You may not like his business model, but the man isn't stupid.
Kranchammer
Mar 31, 06:24 PM
I would add I never understand the comparison of Smartphones running Android to smartphones running IOS.
Neither Google or Apple sell their phone operating systems, and the Android spectrum is made up of 50 handsets from 10 different manufacturers who are in direct competition with each other. They are not one big group working together to take on Apple. It makes absolutely zero sense to make that kind of comparison.
It is just as weird as loping off iPod and iPad IOS users...
If people want to compare smartphones, then compare actual sales of individual smartphones, each which only use one OS. People should not draw meaningless lines in the sand lumping all android based handsets together, because they are not together other than they run android. They might as well compare black phones to white phones.
I imagine if you made a chart of the top selling smartphones in the last 5 years, it would consist of the iPhone 4, the iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 3G and the iPhone.
Why not group smartphones by what kind of graphics chip they have or what type of memory chip they use? The OS is irrelevant. Nobody in the smartphone business is directly making money off any of these oses, it is a stupid way to categorize smart phones.
Of course it happens because if they didn't lump them together it would look absurd with Apple totally dominating the smart phone market with their latest phone every year while 100 android commodity phones all have tiny market shares just to get replaced by the next one.
How does HTC running android OS benefit or relate to a Motorola phone running android? It does not, at all.
Hey, you! No rationality allowed in this here thread. Vitriol, stereotypes, and blanket generalizations only!
Shame on you. ;)
Neither Google or Apple sell their phone operating systems, and the Android spectrum is made up of 50 handsets from 10 different manufacturers who are in direct competition with each other. They are not one big group working together to take on Apple. It makes absolutely zero sense to make that kind of comparison.
It is just as weird as loping off iPod and iPad IOS users...
If people want to compare smartphones, then compare actual sales of individual smartphones, each which only use one OS. People should not draw meaningless lines in the sand lumping all android based handsets together, because they are not together other than they run android. They might as well compare black phones to white phones.
I imagine if you made a chart of the top selling smartphones in the last 5 years, it would consist of the iPhone 4, the iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 3G and the iPhone.
Why not group smartphones by what kind of graphics chip they have or what type of memory chip they use? The OS is irrelevant. Nobody in the smartphone business is directly making money off any of these oses, it is a stupid way to categorize smart phones.
Of course it happens because if they didn't lump them together it would look absurd with Apple totally dominating the smart phone market with their latest phone every year while 100 android commodity phones all have tiny market shares just to get replaced by the next one.
How does HTC running android OS benefit or relate to a Motorola phone running android? It does not, at all.
Hey, you! No rationality allowed in this here thread. Vitriol, stereotypes, and blanket generalizations only!
Shame on you. ;)
ThunderSkunk
Mar 23, 12:38 AM
can you say "last ditch effort"
Kaching!!!
BOOM!
Goodbye.
Nobody wants to f around with all your mess, bleckburry.
Kaching!!!
BOOM!
Goodbye.
Nobody wants to f around with all your mess, bleckburry.
SirHaakon
Apr 6, 09:44 AM
Nobody's using Blu-Ray, in my experience.
You must have pretty limited experience.
It's the only logistical way to deliver high-bitrate 1080p material to clients.
You must have pretty limited experience.
It's the only logistical way to deliver high-bitrate 1080p material to clients.
balamw
Apr 8, 06:26 AM
I wonder if this has more to do with reward zone coupons and 18 month no interest financing.
Have you ever seen an RZ coupon that didn't say "excludes Apple products" along with Bose and a number of other carveouts. Financing may be a different issue.
B
Have you ever seen an RZ coupon that didn't say "excludes Apple products" along with Bose and a number of other carveouts. Financing may be a different issue.
B
mkrishnan
Aug 7, 04:22 PM
If Apple had had that feature for years and MS would include it into Vista now, you'd call it copying, no !? ;)
*shrug* I don't think TM is a copy of System Restore. But I think how much that feature has caught on with Win users is also not unrelated to the presence of TM in Leopard. All's fair in love, war, and operating systems. :)
*shrug* I don't think TM is a copy of System Restore. But I think how much that feature has caught on with Win users is also not unrelated to the presence of TM in Leopard. All's fair in love, war, and operating systems. :)
mlrproducts
Nov 29, 10:34 AM
I think it is a Great idea!!!
Apple will give Universal $1 from every iPod sold, since the iPod is used to store stolen Universal tracks.
In turn, Universal will give Apple $5 from every overpriced CD sold because they're only buying that CD so they can rip it into iTunes/iPod ecosystem.
Apple will give Universal $1 from every iPod sold, since the iPod is used to store stolen Universal tracks.
In turn, Universal will give Apple $5 from every overpriced CD sold because they're only buying that CD so they can rip it into iTunes/iPod ecosystem.
Yamcha
Apr 19, 01:58 PM
Alright, I was originally going to take Apple's side on this, since I could clearly see it looks a lot like iOS, but having looked at Samsung's F700, I don' think Apple has any right to sue..
Although the Samsung F700 has very simple icons, Apple clearly has the same placement of icons, even looking at the bottom you find the four dock like icons..
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9559/samsungf700cellular.jpg
I'd say that Apple copied Samsung :P.. Honestly I'm not one to take sides just because I like Apple Products, I just think its wrong to sue since Samsung clearly had this type of UI first.. Apple has no right to sue..
Although the Samsung F700 has very simple icons, Apple clearly has the same placement of icons, even looking at the bottom you find the four dock like icons..
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9559/samsungf700cellular.jpg
I'd say that Apple copied Samsung :P.. Honestly I'm not one to take sides just because I like Apple Products, I just think its wrong to sue since Samsung clearly had this type of UI first.. Apple has no right to sue..
bonehead
Nov 28, 07:02 PM
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Two things.
1) Who says the people who actually make the music would get any of this money in the first place?
2) Digital distribution is more profitable per unit than CDs. There are no manufacturing or shipping costs.
Now who is it that wants something for nothing?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Two things.
1) Who says the people who actually make the music would get any of this money in the first place?
2) Digital distribution is more profitable per unit than CDs. There are no manufacturing or shipping costs.
Now who is it that wants something for nothing?
Arcus
Apr 25, 03:33 PM
because as we know, there's no end to the absurd lengths people will declare their rights trod upon.
I do agree with you that this whole thing is a big 'ole waste of time and money, I would have appreciated it if Apple told me that this file existed. I certainly know they knew where I was at any given moment. I remember when old cell phones had the ability to turn off the 911 location option, I always turned mine on.
It would have been nice to know about the file and had the option to delete it if I want.
This is waaaayy overblown now.
I do agree with you that this whole thing is a big 'ole waste of time and money, I would have appreciated it if Apple told me that this file existed. I certainly know they knew where I was at any given moment. I remember when old cell phones had the ability to turn off the 911 location option, I always turned mine on.
It would have been nice to know about the file and had the option to delete it if I want.
This is waaaayy overblown now.
CFreymarc
Apr 12, 01:23 AM
I hope not. I want the 5 now :)
Correction, the iPhone 4G starts production in September.
Correction, the iPhone 4G starts production in September.
Kirkmedia
Aug 11, 10:51 AM
iPhone = bad idea and difficult to implement beyond the USA.
I think it will be harder to implement in the USA and easier in Europe.
I think it will be harder to implement in the USA and easier in Europe.
AppliedVisual
Apr 25, 04:20 PM
This is so incredibly stupid, it's mind-numbing.
Edit> I deleted the rest of my post. I see no reason to comment further.
Edit> I deleted the rest of my post. I see no reason to comment further.
Squareball
Jul 20, 02:02 PM
So will this be a "Quad 2 Duo" ;)
meghop
Aug 11, 01:10 PM
Is it possible for Apple to release a phone sold in their stores that would work on all networks? Or have several versions of the phone that will work for Verizon, Cingular...
God I hope this is true. I seriously hate that phones and networks are always tied together. I always end up paying more for an unlocked phone because i tend to buy a really nice phone and then keep it for 3-4 years instead of getting the free or super cheap phone from a different provider every year or so. I also hate the idea of being forced to switch to a certain provider to get a certain phone. I suppose someone somwhere will be selling unlocked iPhones on ebay when it comes out, and I'll just buy it that way, the way I did my last phone. Wish I could just walk into an Apple store and buy one, slap in my sim card, and be good to go though... :D
God I hope this is true. I seriously hate that phones and networks are always tied together. I always end up paying more for an unlocked phone because i tend to buy a really nice phone and then keep it for 3-4 years instead of getting the free or super cheap phone from a different provider every year or so. I also hate the idea of being forced to switch to a certain provider to get a certain phone. I suppose someone somwhere will be selling unlocked iPhones on ebay when it comes out, and I'll just buy it that way, the way I did my last phone. Wish I could just walk into an Apple store and buy one, slap in my sim card, and be good to go though... :D
shamino
Jul 14, 05:26 PM
Kind of odd/funny how we seem to be going backwards in processor speeds. Instead of 3.6 GHz Pentiums, we are looking at 2.x GHz Intel Cores. It would be interesting to see how well a single Core processor matches up to PowerPC, or a Pentium, or AMD.
It just means that Intel has finally publicly recognized the validity of the MHz Myth.
Raw clock speed is meaningless. You can get better performance at a slower clock speed if you can increase parallelism. This includes features like superscalar architecture (where multiple instructions are executed per clock), deep pipelining, hyperthreading, SIMD instructions, and multi-core chips.
However, I am finding one of my predicitions finally happen...it appears that a ceiling has been currently met on how fast the current line of processors can go, and now we are relying on multiple cores/processors to distribute work, instead of relying on just one fast chip.
That's a part of the equation, but not all of it.
Higher clock speeds are possible, but it's not worth the effort. Pumping up the clock speed creates serious problems in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. Leaving the clock speed lower, but increasing parallelism will also boost performance, and keeps the power curve down at manageable levels.
It's worth noting that Intel has shipped P4-series chips at 3.4GHz. But the new chips (Woodcrest and Conroe) aren't being sold at speeds above 3GHz.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
There have already been technology briefings from Intel that talk about 4-core chips in early and 32-core chips by 2010. Similar offerings are expected from AMD.
And the Xeon-MP series processors (which will, of course, eventually get all this tech) are designed with 8-way SMP in mind. A theoretical Xeon-MP based on this 32-core tech would produce a system with 256 cores. Of course, it is doubtful that anything other than a large server would be able to take proper advantage of this, so I wouldn't ever expect to find one on a desktop.
(FWIW, Intel is looking to Sun as a rival here. Sun's latest chip - the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) - currently ships in an 8-core configuration, with each core capable of running four threads at a time, and only consuming 72W of power. Even at 1.2GHz - the top speed they're currently shipping at - this makes for a very nice server.)
It just means that Intel has finally publicly recognized the validity of the MHz Myth.
Raw clock speed is meaningless. You can get better performance at a slower clock speed if you can increase parallelism. This includes features like superscalar architecture (where multiple instructions are executed per clock), deep pipelining, hyperthreading, SIMD instructions, and multi-core chips.
However, I am finding one of my predicitions finally happen...it appears that a ceiling has been currently met on how fast the current line of processors can go, and now we are relying on multiple cores/processors to distribute work, instead of relying on just one fast chip.
That's a part of the equation, but not all of it.
Higher clock speeds are possible, but it's not worth the effort. Pumping up the clock speed creates serious problems in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. Leaving the clock speed lower, but increasing parallelism will also boost performance, and keeps the power curve down at manageable levels.
It's worth noting that Intel has shipped P4-series chips at 3.4GHz. But the new chips (Woodcrest and Conroe) aren't being sold at speeds above 3GHz.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
There have already been technology briefings from Intel that talk about 4-core chips in early and 32-core chips by 2010. Similar offerings are expected from AMD.
And the Xeon-MP series processors (which will, of course, eventually get all this tech) are designed with 8-way SMP in mind. A theoretical Xeon-MP based on this 32-core tech would produce a system with 256 cores. Of course, it is doubtful that anything other than a large server would be able to take proper advantage of this, so I wouldn't ever expect to find one on a desktop.
(FWIW, Intel is looking to Sun as a rival here. Sun's latest chip - the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) - currently ships in an 8-core configuration, with each core capable of running four threads at a time, and only consuming 72W of power. Even at 1.2GHz - the top speed they're currently shipping at - this makes for a very nice server.)
rezenclowd3
Dec 1, 11:31 PM
I hate to link to IGN, but here goes:
GT5 damage explained (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/113/1137446p1.html)
Confusion seems to have stemmed from its differing implementation across the game's extensive garage, a point that Sony further clarified. "Standard models have minor deformation and scratches," said Sony, "Premium cars have greater visible level of damage, and Premium racing models have the highest level of damage."
----------
Also from this (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/113/1136979p1.html) article:
"The first update, Yamauchi said, is coming this Saturday and will include restrictions for weight and power in online races.
Yamauchi went on to say that his team would be "upgrading every week, every month." "
GT5 damage explained (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/113/1137446p1.html)
Confusion seems to have stemmed from its differing implementation across the game's extensive garage, a point that Sony further clarified. "Standard models have minor deformation and scratches," said Sony, "Premium cars have greater visible level of damage, and Premium racing models have the highest level of damage."
----------
Also from this (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/113/1136979p1.html) article:
"The first update, Yamauchi said, is coming this Saturday and will include restrictions for weight and power in online races.
Yamauchi went on to say that his team would be "upgrading every week, every month." "
benthewraith
Nov 28, 08:07 PM
I agree with the people here who have said that if this happens they would pirate all of the Music that they wanted from universal. If this happens and I buy a new iPod after that I will just go and pirate the Music that I want since the record labels have already been paid.
You could have a subpoena on you the moment you do (and it would not be an effective defense if you had posts such as these in public forums. Did you know that bots go to forums?).
I just wouldn't buy anything more from Universal. There are plenty of bands in Jacksonville to fill my iPod up (and Yellowcard isn't contracted with Universal! :D).
You could have a subpoena on you the moment you do (and it would not be an effective defense if you had posts such as these in public forums. Did you know that bots go to forums?).
I just wouldn't buy anything more from Universal. There are plenty of bands in Jacksonville to fill my iPod up (and Yellowcard isn't contracted with Universal! :D).
gkarris
Mar 22, 01:18 PM
My Wife says no....
;)
;)
starflyer
Mar 23, 09:30 AM
So you don't understand the primary differences between the cellphone market and the launch of the iPhone and the tablet market and the launch of the iPad. If you did you would understand why this is not the case.
Exactly. What people fail to realize is that the iPad market is more comparable to the iPod Touch then the iPhone for which there still isn't any competition.
Exactly. What people fail to realize is that the iPad market is more comparable to the iPod Touch then the iPhone for which there still isn't any competition.
