Mr_Ed
Mar 30, 11:42 AM
It seems that App on its own is generic, but the combination with another word to define a particular thing is not... see
Lady + Gaga
Best + Buy
Fack + Book
Micro + Soft
General + Electric
Pintos + Cheese .. okay, maybe not that
You may have a point there, but as long as we are throwing words around I always like to remember how important it is to choose the right words so the intended meaning is conveyed . . .
Micro = Small, Soft = Flaccid
:D
Lady + Gaga
Best + Buy
Fack + Book
Micro + Soft
General + Electric
Pintos + Cheese .. okay, maybe not that
You may have a point there, but as long as we are throwing words around I always like to remember how important it is to choose the right words so the intended meaning is conveyed . . .
Micro = Small, Soft = Flaccid
:D
koruki
Apr 19, 03:47 PM
So what? They're already getting sued by Apple, so what's another lawsuit? Point is, contract breach or not, Samsung could cripple Apple's whole ecosystem within days by halting all processor shipments. Apple makes the vast majority on iDevices and this would kill Apple's whole economic model. And this doesn't even account for Samsungs components that go into their Macs. As a result, Apple would have no hardware to sell. They would dip into their treasure chest. It could be devastating to Apple.
Yeah cause a contract breach takes just as long to prove a IP suite. They'd get slapped so fast they wont know what hit them, not to mention other companies would see it as samsung being cowboys for mixing their two business up.
Yeah cause a contract breach takes just as long to prove a IP suite. They'd get slapped so fast they wont know what hit them, not to mention other companies would see it as samsung being cowboys for mixing their two business up.
roadbloc
Jan 1, 10:26 AM
It makes sense. iProducts are increasingly becoming ubiquitous, therefore they will become more profitable for malware developers to attack. It's not a McAfee sales pitch so much as it's stating the obvious. Same with Android.
Yes. Absolutely. A closed filesystem where you're only able to download anything significant through a moderated app store is going to be riddled with viruses. :rolleyes:
Yes. Absolutely. A closed filesystem where you're only able to download anything significant through a moderated app store is going to be riddled with viruses. :rolleyes:
Multimedia
Sep 9, 02:16 PM
Heh, that's pretty funny. I have quite a few applications that'll hit one core at 100%. (Q emulator is the best example) Luckily, even though it's not multi-threaded a have another core free to do my work while Q eats up 100% of one.
I run Windows 98 in Q for laughs. I liked Windows 98...Exactly. A perfect example where one application topping out on only one core leaves the entire other one for other stuff. Probably a good thing to have that limit.
In fact, in future, I could see where application developers let the user in preferences tell the application how many cores to be allowed to use. Give the user a choice of how many cores he/she wants a particular process to use. That would be a way cool improvement in all application preferences. Would prevent any one applicaiton from hosing the computer due to core hogging.
I run Windows 98 in Q for laughs. I liked Windows 98...Exactly. A perfect example where one application topping out on only one core leaves the entire other one for other stuff. Probably a good thing to have that limit.
In fact, in future, I could see where application developers let the user in preferences tell the application how many cores to be allowed to use. Give the user a choice of how many cores he/she wants a particular process to use. That would be a way cool improvement in all application preferences. Would prevent any one applicaiton from hosing the computer due to core hogging.
Ted13
Sep 19, 02:16 PM
What I'm really curious about is if there was a huge bump in TV show sales volume with the 4 times increase in resolution.
I know I bought a show I wouldn't have otherwise and plan on buying a couple more.
I know I bought a show I wouldn't have otherwise and plan on buying a couple more.
afd
Apr 11, 08:15 AM
I can't imagine how Apple could have thought they could keep that private key secret forever.
been secret since '04
been secret since '04
TangoCharlie
Jul 14, 11:00 AM
Rumored maybe, but not "widely expected". I only expect the high end Mac Pros to have Woodcrest, I can see the low end having Conroe easily.
Yeah, OK, "rumored" then.... but there are more "rumors" that it'll be Xeon (Woodcrest) rather than Core 2 Duo (Conroe).
In fact, I think "Chinese Wispers" might be more appropriate! :confused:
Yeah, OK, "rumored" then.... but there are more "rumors" that it'll be Xeon (Woodcrest) rather than Core 2 Duo (Conroe).
In fact, I think "Chinese Wispers" might be more appropriate! :confused:
daneoni
Sep 12, 04:30 PM
Educated guess would be "big" iPod sales will slump whilst the Nanos & Shuffles will skyrocket.
anthonymoody
Aug 28, 03:12 PM
With the switch to Intel, Apple may have to provide timely upgrades to remain competitive with Windows-based PC manufacturers.
Aint that the understatement of the year!
TM
Aint that the understatement of the year!
TM
ender78
Aug 23, 05:14 PM
Too bad Apple had to pay when, IMO, they didn't really infringe on a patent.
Either Apple believed they did and/or was afraid of further damages the court could award. If Steve thought he could invalidate the patent, he would not have settled.
Either Apple believed they did and/or was afraid of further damages the court could award. If Steve thought he could invalidate the patent, he would not have settled.
joel8x
Oct 12, 04:02 PM
This site is so wierd - 10 people actually clicked on the negative rating to this story like there is anything negative about it.
milo
Sep 19, 05:23 PM
But my point is that Steve talked about 30-minute downloads as if to say that this is what your average user can expect.
Absolutely not. He said 30 minutes on a fast connection, pointing out SPECIFICALLY what speed connection is needed for that. If you interpreted it as "average users" will get that speed, you just weren't listening.
If I want to take my iBook on the road with me, then how are the other people in my house going to access the Movies and other media via iTV if it's stored on my iBook or some "external HD" which requires a host computer to be of any use.
How do they check their email when you take the notebook on the road?
I think the major problem with external hardrives, is that iTunes will organises all your content into the Music folder. I just bought a 300GB drive and would love to place all my movies in their, but at the same time I want my music on my Mac (not the external). Apple really needs to address the storage features in iTunes, as movies are large files.
iTunes places content into that folder when you download or rip. But you can put content anywhere, just drag it into iTunes from the new location. I'd like to see them support multiple folders in the future, but you can certainly use content without having it in the folder already.
Absolutely not. He said 30 minutes on a fast connection, pointing out SPECIFICALLY what speed connection is needed for that. If you interpreted it as "average users" will get that speed, you just weren't listening.
If I want to take my iBook on the road with me, then how are the other people in my house going to access the Movies and other media via iTV if it's stored on my iBook or some "external HD" which requires a host computer to be of any use.
How do they check their email when you take the notebook on the road?
I think the major problem with external hardrives, is that iTunes will organises all your content into the Music folder. I just bought a 300GB drive and would love to place all my movies in their, but at the same time I want my music on my Mac (not the external). Apple really needs to address the storage features in iTunes, as movies are large files.
iTunes places content into that folder when you download or rip. But you can put content anywhere, just drag it into iTunes from the new location. I'd like to see them support multiple folders in the future, but you can certainly use content without having it in the folder already.
shecky
Sep 14, 08:16 AM
announcing the C2D MBP alongside next rev of aperture seems to be a natural fit. i really want to keep beliveing that the new MBP will happen in september, and this seems like a perfect time for it.
zenmac
Jul 15, 02:21 PM
I know that it is a desktop chip but I would expect that a site like anandtech or tomshardware would check againt the core duo just to see how much the difference is between the two "core" CPU.
bretm
Sep 9, 12:53 PM
And I'm thinking... why?! 10 years ago BeOS had this down pat. The whole system was multi-threaded and multi-processor aware from the kernel all the way up through the user interface including the system services used by all native applications. It was amazingly responsive and was reported (in major publications) to gain as much as 60-70% performance by having a second CPU. I realize MacOS X is based on some old NeXTStep code which was not made for multiple processors, but come on! This is the 21st century and Apple's been selling dual processor machines for about 5 years now.
Anyway, this is great news. I'd been drooling over the new iMacs since they were announced and wondering how much I might gain by upgrading from my 2GHz G5 PowerMac. It's very enticing.
Well they were selling them back in 1996 so you might want to add 5 years to your 5 year statement. You could buy dual 604e in the 9500 and the 9600 too I think.
Anyway, this is great news. I'd been drooling over the new iMacs since they were announced and wondering how much I might gain by upgrading from my 2GHz G5 PowerMac. It's very enticing.
Well they were selling them back in 1996 so you might want to add 5 years to your 5 year statement. You could buy dual 604e in the 9500 and the 9600 too I think.
jakemikey
Sep 10, 09:16 AM
It is expected to be a Conroe "drop-in" and should work with the same motherboards as Conroe.
This won't be the case:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=16078
just because it's LGA 775 doesn't mean it's a Conroe 'drop-in'. It'll need at least a 975x or p965 chipset and modified motherboard circuitry to handle it. And please, people, stop with the 'pin compatible' crap. Just because a proc is 'pin compatible' with another proc doesn't mean you can mix and match as you like. You have to think about the chipset, and about voltage regulators, and the motherboard circuitry in general. I have a board with a Pentium D in it right now - both the socket and the chipset support Conroe, but the board itself doesn't simply because of the voltage regulator. By the 'pin compatible' theory, I should be able to shove a Kentsfield into just about any late-model P4 board and have it work just fine -- won't happen!
This won't be the case:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=16078
just because it's LGA 775 doesn't mean it's a Conroe 'drop-in'. It'll need at least a 975x or p965 chipset and modified motherboard circuitry to handle it. And please, people, stop with the 'pin compatible' crap. Just because a proc is 'pin compatible' with another proc doesn't mean you can mix and match as you like. You have to think about the chipset, and about voltage regulators, and the motherboard circuitry in general. I have a board with a Pentium D in it right now - both the socket and the chipset support Conroe, but the board itself doesn't simply because of the voltage regulator. By the 'pin compatible' theory, I should be able to shove a Kentsfield into just about any late-model P4 board and have it work just fine -- won't happen!
ksz
Jul 14, 09:40 AM
Does anyone think we should be hitting 4ghz about now?
I mean weve been stuck on 2.x for ages. Whats the deal? A 4ghz quad would be frickin awesome. :confused:
If you raised the clock speed of NetBurst-based Pentium 4s (or Pentium Ds) to 4GHz, you would still not achieve the same performance as today's Conroe at 2.13GHz. Clock speed alone is not an accurate gauge of performance.
Because of increasing problems with heat density, clock speeds haven't been rising at their historical rates. A kind of brick wall was hit when the semiconductor industry moved to 90nm. At those dimensions a series of unexpected problems plagued ramp and ushered a change away from blindly raising clock speeds towards more functionality and more optimized functionality at more manageable clock speeds.
Clock speeds will hit 4GHz and keep rising, but not at the rate we have been accustomed to. But as the Core 2 benchmarks show, Intel has intelligently redesigned the processor to achieve significant speed improvements at existing clock speeds.
I mean weve been stuck on 2.x for ages. Whats the deal? A 4ghz quad would be frickin awesome. :confused:
If you raised the clock speed of NetBurst-based Pentium 4s (or Pentium Ds) to 4GHz, you would still not achieve the same performance as today's Conroe at 2.13GHz. Clock speed alone is not an accurate gauge of performance.
Because of increasing problems with heat density, clock speeds haven't been rising at their historical rates. A kind of brick wall was hit when the semiconductor industry moved to 90nm. At those dimensions a series of unexpected problems plagued ramp and ushered a change away from blindly raising clock speeds towards more functionality and more optimized functionality at more manageable clock speeds.
Clock speeds will hit 4GHz and keep rising, but not at the rate we have been accustomed to. But as the Core 2 benchmarks show, Intel has intelligently redesigned the processor to achieve significant speed improvements at existing clock speeds.
vvswarup
Apr 30, 09:49 PM
Microsoft doesn't really play in the consumer / gadget / toy market, which simply means that you don't get to see most of their products unless you work in a corporate data center. And unlike Apple, Microsoft -has- data center / server products that people WANT to use and that are years ahead of the pack (Sharepoint Portal Server, Exchange Server, SQL Server, Terminal Services, just to name a few) - and a LOT of their RD goes there.
This sounds like "sour grapes."
Also, nobody here should kid themselves - Microsoft still OWNS the desktop and office suite markets. Around a BILLION computers run their software, and even most Macs are dead in the water without Microsoft Office and/or Microsoft Windows (in Boot Camp, Parallels, Fusion, VirtualBox).
That's the whole point. Microsoft owns the desktop and office suite markets, yet, Microsoft is unwilling to move on to markets that have more potential to grow.
So Apple was more profitable in the last quarter. Big deal. Somebody with enough time on their hands might want to analyze the spending behavior and amount of staff and level of salaries to find out -WHY- that was the case. Maybe the guys at Microsoft have higher salaries and more vacation. Maybe Ballmer put more money into RD and marketing than in the last quarter. Maybe they bought more startups than before.
Nice try, but you're dead wrong here. Apple already beat Microsoft in revenue a couple of quarters ago. So don't even try to chalk it up to Apple being "cheap." Apple has already beaten Microsoft in Revenue.
Actually, who cares. Both companies are extremely profitable, but Microsoft has been profitable for a couple of decades more than Apple (who almost died in the 1990s while Microsoft was making more money than anybody else).
Now this is trying to make light of the matter. Apple beat out what was once the world's largest tech company. When Apple's market cap surpassed Microsoft's, people called Apple overvalued. They still call Apple overvalued. Now, Apple has beaten Microsoft in profits.
This sounds like "sour grapes."
Also, nobody here should kid themselves - Microsoft still OWNS the desktop and office suite markets. Around a BILLION computers run their software, and even most Macs are dead in the water without Microsoft Office and/or Microsoft Windows (in Boot Camp, Parallels, Fusion, VirtualBox).
That's the whole point. Microsoft owns the desktop and office suite markets, yet, Microsoft is unwilling to move on to markets that have more potential to grow.
So Apple was more profitable in the last quarter. Big deal. Somebody with enough time on their hands might want to analyze the spending behavior and amount of staff and level of salaries to find out -WHY- that was the case. Maybe the guys at Microsoft have higher salaries and more vacation. Maybe Ballmer put more money into RD and marketing than in the last quarter. Maybe they bought more startups than before.
Nice try, but you're dead wrong here. Apple already beat Microsoft in revenue a couple of quarters ago. So don't even try to chalk it up to Apple being "cheap." Apple has already beaten Microsoft in Revenue.
Actually, who cares. Both companies are extremely profitable, but Microsoft has been profitable for a couple of decades more than Apple (who almost died in the 1990s while Microsoft was making more money than anybody else).
Now this is trying to make light of the matter. Apple beat out what was once the world's largest tech company. When Apple's market cap surpassed Microsoft's, people called Apple overvalued. They still call Apple overvalued. Now, Apple has beaten Microsoft in profits.
mcmlxix
Apr 20, 11:37 AM
This is a huge concern because of the use by law enforcement (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20055431-1.html) of the Cellebrite device to download and scrutinize the data in cell phones. Apparently, police departments in Michigan are using this device when pulling drivers on traffic violations. Here (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.asp) is another article on the use in Michigan.
Cellebrite's widget is apparently able to download and scrutinize (http://www.cellebrite.com/news-and-events/press-releases/190-cellebrite-releases-ufed-physical-analyzer-version-20-the-new-standard-for-mobile-phone-forensics-.html) the data from a vast variety of mobile devices, including Blackberry phones and the iPhone.
Isn't this illegal search and seizure?
Cellebrite's widget is apparently able to download and scrutinize (http://www.cellebrite.com/news-and-events/press-releases/190-cellebrite-releases-ufed-physical-analyzer-version-20-the-new-standard-for-mobile-phone-forensics-.html) the data from a vast variety of mobile devices, including Blackberry phones and the iPhone.
Isn't this illegal search and seizure?
lOUDsCREAMEr
Sep 26, 09:56 AM
I hear you. :eek: But, there are no Intel Inside stickers on the Intel Macs. Perhaps there is hope...
http://images.apple.com/imac/images/indexintelchip20060906.jpg
whatz that?! ;) :D :p
http://images.apple.com/imac/images/indexintelchip20060906.jpg
whatz that?! ;) :D :p
Moyank24
Apr 25, 02:49 AM
I never said my actions were morally right. I'll admit that my actions are probably very immoral, and ethically wrong. The simple fact is I don't care about how people view my morality or ethics. Why should I care what people think of me. I never said it bothers me that you guys are not agreeing with me, all I said is that I find it laughable.
EDIT: @uscfgrad93 - No I won't ruin them, unless my 4.2 GPA, 36 ACT score, 2400 SAT score, and nearly 2500 hours of volunteer work over the past two years count as ruining them. Oh also add in both of my parents' alumni status with Harvard, and there donations every year;)
-Don
Am I the only one that thinks this kid is completely FOS? He's that guy who has to torment everyone and lie about how smart and rich he is to make himself feel better about his shallow, lonely, crappy life. Typical internet tough guy.
Dude, good luck at "Harvard". You wouldn't last 10 minutes.
EDIT: @uscfgrad93 - No I won't ruin them, unless my 4.2 GPA, 36 ACT score, 2400 SAT score, and nearly 2500 hours of volunteer work over the past two years count as ruining them. Oh also add in both of my parents' alumni status with Harvard, and there donations every year;)
-Don
Am I the only one that thinks this kid is completely FOS? He's that guy who has to torment everyone and lie about how smart and rich he is to make himself feel better about his shallow, lonely, crappy life. Typical internet tough guy.
Dude, good luck at "Harvard". You wouldn't last 10 minutes.
whooleytoo
Sep 14, 06:22 AM
It seems very odd that Apple would adopt the iPod nano look 'n' feel on the iPhone, when they've just dropped it on the nano itself. On the other hand, it's possible the nano's look was changed to differentiate it from the upcoming iPhone - though I don't buy it.
The scroll wheel looks very low on the front of the device, meaning it's hard to use it with your thumb without the phone toppling out of your hand (as with many current phones).
Whatever about the design, if Apple could make any attractive phone, which is stable(!!), with a snappy UI (!!!), and with tight integration with the Mac (contacts, calendars/schedulers, perhaps even tighter integration with Address Book), I'd snap it up.
The scroll wheel looks very low on the front of the device, meaning it's hard to use it with your thumb without the phone toppling out of your hand (as with many current phones).
Whatever about the design, if Apple could make any attractive phone, which is stable(!!), with a snappy UI (!!!), and with tight integration with the Mac (contacts, calendars/schedulers, perhaps even tighter integration with Address Book), I'd snap it up.
stroked
Apr 4, 12:32 PM
Was It really necessary to kill him?
No
Anyone who is trained with a hand gun, is told to shoot to kill. This scum deserved to die.
No
Anyone who is trained with a hand gun, is told to shoot to kill. This scum deserved to die.
MattInOz
Jan 2, 06:11 PM
Targeting is one thing. Successfully attacking is a completely different animal. They've been targeting OS X since it came out a decade ago. Successful attacks range from barely a blip on the radar to nonexistent, depending on how you define success. There's no reason to believe that attacks on IOS will be half as successful as the pitiful attacks on OS X.
Targeting isn't ever going to work if the users are aware of what an attack looks like. It's good that the system makes an attack as obvious as possible. Mac OS helps a lot in that regard but some users just never learn (blondes it's always the blondes who try and open attachments).
Not that anti virus helps after all it can't do anything unless they know of the attack as well. Having it installed just gives the user a reason to be complacent which is worse. It all comes down to training users.
Targeting isn't ever going to work if the users are aware of what an attack looks like. It's good that the system makes an attack as obvious as possible. Mac OS helps a lot in that regard but some users just never learn (blondes it's always the blondes who try and open attachments).
Not that anti virus helps after all it can't do anything unless they know of the attack as well. Having it installed just gives the user a reason to be complacent which is worse. It all comes down to training users.
