Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 01:02 AM
I agree. The Democrats will, of course, push Obama for a second-term and thus our opposition candidates are all GOP, none of whom are serious contenders for improving our present situation.
Obama is far from perfect. But all of the known GOP contenders (Huckabee, Palin, Bachmann, Romney, Paul etc etc) are completely unacceptable.
If I read the Obama administration correctly, the US involvement will be very limited and while "advisors" are certainly on the ground
At this stage I doubt we have any boots on the ground. Communication with the opposition leadership is still patchy but they have made it clear they do not want foreign soldiers in-country. It will be best if the situation can be resolved without further foreign military intervention.
Obama is far from perfect. But all of the known GOP contenders (Huckabee, Palin, Bachmann, Romney, Paul etc etc) are completely unacceptable.
If I read the Obama administration correctly, the US involvement will be very limited and while "advisors" are certainly on the ground
At this stage I doubt we have any boots on the ground. Communication with the opposition leadership is still patchy but they have made it clear they do not want foreign soldiers in-country. It will be best if the situation can be resolved without further foreign military intervention.
aswitcher
Aug 5, 09:25 PM
*iChat Phone - Call numbers through iChat as part of .Mac... I guess you could make a conference with a combination of multiple phone numbers/iChatters.
*Maps - A new application designed to compete with Google Earth, but of course be much, much snazzier. Apparently, the next MBP would include a GPS chip so that you could see a "You Are Here" on the map.
I am hoping the iPhone has BT and GPS, and links to Maps on your Mac! :eek:
*Maps - A new application designed to compete with Google Earth, but of course be much, much snazzier. Apparently, the next MBP would include a GPS chip so that you could see a "You Are Here" on the map.
I am hoping the iPhone has BT and GPS, and links to Maps on your Mac! :eek:
shamino
Jul 14, 05:35 PM
Ok, here's ANOTHER can of worms. Since we're on EFI now and can boot in Windows. It means our video cards, etc. don't have Open Firmware BIOS. Does that mean ANY "Windows" video card will work as long as OS X has drivers for it? Does OS X even have generic VGA drivers?
Interesting question, but I don't think any of us here will have the answers.
PCs don't use EFI. I don't know if a generic AGP/PCIe card can be initialized by EFI, or if the card will need some EFI code to be on-board.
As for OS X, I think we can be fairly certain that Apple will only bundle drivers for cards that Apple sells. If you install a third-party card, they will probably tell you that you'll need a driver from the card's manufacturer - that's what they've historically told customers.
Generic VGA drivers? I'm sure they were developed - they'd be very useful during that time when OS X/Intel was internal-only. But I wouldn't expect them to be bundled with a shipping copy of the system software.
Now, assuming that the Mac firmware (including whatever EFI drivers they include in it) is capable of initializing a generic video card, then there should be no need for more than a device driver, which the card vendors can probably provide, if they are so inclined. If the cards will require special ROM code for EFI, however, then we're back to the same problem that plagued the PPC systems.
Interesting question, but I don't think any of us here will have the answers.
PCs don't use EFI. I don't know if a generic AGP/PCIe card can be initialized by EFI, or if the card will need some EFI code to be on-board.
As for OS X, I think we can be fairly certain that Apple will only bundle drivers for cards that Apple sells. If you install a third-party card, they will probably tell you that you'll need a driver from the card's manufacturer - that's what they've historically told customers.
Generic VGA drivers? I'm sure they were developed - they'd be very useful during that time when OS X/Intel was internal-only. But I wouldn't expect them to be bundled with a shipping copy of the system software.
Now, assuming that the Mac firmware (including whatever EFI drivers they include in it) is capable of initializing a generic video card, then there should be no need for more than a device driver, which the card vendors can probably provide, if they are so inclined. If the cards will require special ROM code for EFI, however, then we're back to the same problem that plagued the PPC systems.
Andrew7724
Aug 6, 01:33 AM
yes, i DO NOT want to see a new design of the macbook pro. haahah :P
I just got mine a month ago, it would suck if there is a better design this year.
But... i don't really care if there was just a speed bump with that new intel chip. I'm fine with that as long as they keep everything else the same...
yes I know I'm kind of selfish... :P
No Macbook Pros?? I hope there won't be any. My MBP gets to stay top of the line for few more weeks ;) . Besides, and correct me if I'm wrong, but when was the last time that any notebook was mere updated at WWDC ??
on the front row topic...
the front row remote thing... apple could do a bluetooth remote.
I just got mine a month ago, it would suck if there is a better design this year.
But... i don't really care if there was just a speed bump with that new intel chip. I'm fine with that as long as they keep everything else the same...
yes I know I'm kind of selfish... :P
No Macbook Pros?? I hope there won't be any. My MBP gets to stay top of the line for few more weeks ;) . Besides, and correct me if I'm wrong, but when was the last time that any notebook was mere updated at WWDC ??
on the front row topic...
the front row remote thing... apple could do a bluetooth remote.
toddybody
Apr 6, 11:25 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.
what did Apple do with the iP4? Oh wait...
As far as Devs are concerned, they 2x the res for their ease. Sorry, its not that "****ing crazy". Oh, and before someone says "well theres not going to be a mobile GPU that could handle that res"; not true, even now theres some great emerging technologies that have handled concurrent instances of 1080p (like 10 displays)...much less whats going to be available in 2012(if we survive the world ending:) Furthermore, native apps like iBooks/iTunes/etc dont require heavy processing to display hi res. Sorry man, youre wrong.
PS: Take it easy on the *
what did Apple do with the iP4? Oh wait...
As far as Devs are concerned, they 2x the res for their ease. Sorry, its not that "****ing crazy". Oh, and before someone says "well theres not going to be a mobile GPU that could handle that res"; not true, even now theres some great emerging technologies that have handled concurrent instances of 1080p (like 10 displays)...much less whats going to be available in 2012(if we survive the world ending:) Furthermore, native apps like iBooks/iTunes/etc dont require heavy processing to display hi res. Sorry man, youre wrong.
PS: Take it easy on the *
ServiceTag
Apr 8, 03:12 AM
These BB guys were making some odd and strange excuses for low stock. Made me run around on many occasions. They shouldn't be allowed to sell iPad. Apple take them away from these jack**s. :mad: You deserve it!!!!
Agree 100%. I wish BB goes out of business. Went 3x into different stores after I called and got confirmation they got shipment. Every time same stupid excuse - we can't sell it because of pre-orders, however we don't take pre-orders any more!?
In my area most BB managers are just bunch of corporate wanna be idiots....
Agree 100%. I wish BB goes out of business. Went 3x into different stores after I called and got confirmation they got shipment. Every time same stupid excuse - we can't sell it because of pre-orders, however we don't take pre-orders any more!?
In my area most BB managers are just bunch of corporate wanna be idiots....
blahblah100
Apr 6, 02:52 PM
:apple:
That's all I have to say.
Really? Are sales numbers what dictates one product is better than the other?
I'm not saying the Xoom is better (I haven't used one) but a reading of the posts on this thread would suggest that sales number indicate that one product is better than the other.
That's all I have to say.
Really? Are sales numbers what dictates one product is better than the other?
I'm not saying the Xoom is better (I haven't used one) but a reading of the posts on this thread would suggest that sales number indicate that one product is better than the other.
tortoise
Aug 7, 09:26 PM
Well I wouldn't say "Nothing" as obviously it required a lot of programmer time to move the OS to Intel, create the new XCode compiler, create & debug rosetta, re-write all of the iLife, and Pro-Apps offered by Apple, etc. etc.
This should be pretty trivial for the most part, mostly just a rebuild of the code base plus a rewrite of some tiny core bits that will be in assembly code (like locking primitives) and a few drivers. The normal applications should require approximately no porting effort at all.
I would point out that the Intel compiler for OSX is much better than the PPC compiler for the same. I found a couple extremely irritating compiler bugs under XCode PPC, while I have never even seen a bug in contemporaneous versions of GCC for Intel. This by itself is worth something. Current versions of GCC for x86 and AMD64 are on par with the best commercial compilers. GCC for PPC was a usable but inferior pile of dog poo that gave me many problems.
This should be pretty trivial for the most part, mostly just a rebuild of the code base plus a rewrite of some tiny core bits that will be in assembly code (like locking primitives) and a few drivers. The normal applications should require approximately no porting effort at all.
I would point out that the Intel compiler for OSX is much better than the PPC compiler for the same. I found a couple extremely irritating compiler bugs under XCode PPC, while I have never even seen a bug in contemporaneous versions of GCC for Intel. This by itself is worth something. Current versions of GCC for x86 and AMD64 are on par with the best commercial compilers. GCC for PPC was a usable but inferior pile of dog poo that gave me many problems.
frunkis54
Apr 27, 09:29 AM
It is not surprising (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf) (pdf).
yep 4b says it all. saying if we don't want to be tracked if we don't want to by not using any app that tracks. seriously?. or by turning off location on the iphone. well we know that doesn't make a difference for this.
yep 4b says it all. saying if we don't want to be tracked if we don't want to by not using any app that tracks. seriously?. or by turning off location on the iphone. well we know that doesn't make a difference for this.
Lailoken
Mar 31, 05:52 PM
I've really loved my experience with Android so far. I've had an iPhone and a iPhone 3G and I am an iPhone developer.... yet I use Android.
Android will always be "open source" and this is not inconsistent with Google applying more control to stem inoperable fragmentation. These two ideas are not at odds.
I cannot wait for Google to do what I think Amazon is currently trying to do with their new App. Store.
That said I really like the new iPad 2, but sadly my next purchase would prolly be a i7 MacBook Pro.
Android will always be "open source" and this is not inconsistent with Google applying more control to stem inoperable fragmentation. These two ideas are not at odds.
I cannot wait for Google to do what I think Amazon is currently trying to do with their new App. Store.
That said I really like the new iPad 2, but sadly my next purchase would prolly be a i7 MacBook Pro.
Pro31
Apr 6, 02:08 PM
It is because Motorola likes to tote their hardware, where as Apple's software is what kills it.
RebootD
Apr 10, 11:39 AM
Considering the number of shocking disappointments (Lion being more iOS, no FCS updates, glossy everything etc) as of late with Apple releases I'm still not holding my breath that they will release something to take me away from CS5. I would love to be surprised though.
ehoui
Apr 27, 05:35 PM
It's just like kings, innit?
Probably has more to do with trying to avoid the label "Junior" than pretending to be a king.
In any event, I think Obama shouldn't have release anything. There was no need.
Probably has more to do with trying to avoid the label "Junior" than pretending to be a king.
In any event, I think Obama shouldn't have release anything. There was no need.
hobo.hopkins
Apr 25, 02:21 PM
Is it really? Is it open for people to look at how it is accessed? I don't think so. If that were the case, it would have been revealed earlier and more easily.
Apple needs to do the right thing and be transparent in this process.
The information is private. It is only accessible to you and anyone with direct access to your devices. I agree that Apple should provide details as to why these locations are being cached, or possibly a way to opt-out for those who are concerned. To say that this is a privacy invasion is simply not true because the information is still private.
It is not an invasion of privacy, it is an unnecessary (and unpublicised) risk to your privacy.
Any company that stores sensitive data of yours, eg, a CC number, is expected and to some degree legally bound to take any reasonable precautions to keep your data private (eg, by securing their servers). Apple simply failed to take reasonable precautions (by clearing the cache). Not on something extremely serious but an oversight for which they could except some slight scolding.
I don't want them to clear my cache, and I think most users wouldn't either. If this information has a beneficial purpose (which it very well might) then I don't want it cleared. I agree that there should be a way to clear this if a user so chooses. Apple offers a way to encrypt your backups so I don't see how they haven't taken reasonable precautions.
Apple needs to do the right thing and be transparent in this process.
The information is private. It is only accessible to you and anyone with direct access to your devices. I agree that Apple should provide details as to why these locations are being cached, or possibly a way to opt-out for those who are concerned. To say that this is a privacy invasion is simply not true because the information is still private.
It is not an invasion of privacy, it is an unnecessary (and unpublicised) risk to your privacy.
Any company that stores sensitive data of yours, eg, a CC number, is expected and to some degree legally bound to take any reasonable precautions to keep your data private (eg, by securing their servers). Apple simply failed to take reasonable precautions (by clearing the cache). Not on something extremely serious but an oversight for which they could except some slight scolding.
I don't want them to clear my cache, and I think most users wouldn't either. If this information has a beneficial purpose (which it very well might) then I don't want it cleared. I agree that there should be a way to clear this if a user so chooses. Apple offers a way to encrypt your backups so I don't see how they haven't taken reasonable precautions.
macgeek2005
Aug 19, 06:08 PM
I'm sure you know this. But just a reminder that you would be dealing with an extremely fragile and tricky upgrade process that could destroy your motherboard or fry the processor without the latest cooling system from Apple. Just my own caution against attempting this. Not worth the risk I think. There will be a better video card with the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro as well as other changes to the system fixing bugs discovered between now and then. Too many changes in the works for me to want to fool with such a complex system.
You make me mad you know that? All over the boards I see your posts with your weird avatar and your extremely critical opinions on everything. Why don't you wait until 2010 and get a 32 core system from intel. Why don't you wait until nobody uses computers anymore. This is just a phase in the history of the world. There will be something beyond computers in another few hundred years. Why buy a computer if it'll be obsolete at some point?
Professional users are out there using G5 towers and even G4's. They're using MacBook Pro's, which are much less powerfull than the Quad Mac Pro right now. I mean, what's your problem? Will there ever be a computer good enough for you?
There are people like you out there, but i've never met a case as extreme as you. I mean, you even went as far as to say that theres very little you can do with 4 cores. Where the **** did you pull that from? Actually, don't answer that question.
I think that you're secretly some evil worker from microsoft trying to stall people from buying Mac Pro's!
If everyone could all of a sudden comprehend exactly how powerful the current machines are, anyone who was thinking of buying one, would buy one.
But you're out here with your "Clovertown is better" and your "Bugs must be worked out" and your this and your that.
You know what? I have three Rev. A iMac Core Duo's in my house, and not a single one of them has had a bug, a crash, a freeze, or a problem of any sort. Rev. A.
HMMM. Maybe Apple does know how to do Rev. A. Just sometimes? Maybe? Perhaps?
Especially with their Quad Xeon 64 Bit Workstation which they've been working on for over a year?
Do you realise that in the procces of making these computers they work out the bugs themselves? They use the computers, and find all the bugs possible, and work them out?
What do you think all those apple workers have been doing for the last year and a half, if not working out bugs on their machines?
For anyone out there who has been needlessly influenced by this guy to wait for a system that will only be outdated by the one that will come after it, please uninfluence yourself, and buy the stupid computer that you want, when you want it.
Jeeshh!!
You make me mad you know that? All over the boards I see your posts with your weird avatar and your extremely critical opinions on everything. Why don't you wait until 2010 and get a 32 core system from intel. Why don't you wait until nobody uses computers anymore. This is just a phase in the history of the world. There will be something beyond computers in another few hundred years. Why buy a computer if it'll be obsolete at some point?
Professional users are out there using G5 towers and even G4's. They're using MacBook Pro's, which are much less powerfull than the Quad Mac Pro right now. I mean, what's your problem? Will there ever be a computer good enough for you?
There are people like you out there, but i've never met a case as extreme as you. I mean, you even went as far as to say that theres very little you can do with 4 cores. Where the **** did you pull that from? Actually, don't answer that question.
I think that you're secretly some evil worker from microsoft trying to stall people from buying Mac Pro's!
If everyone could all of a sudden comprehend exactly how powerful the current machines are, anyone who was thinking of buying one, would buy one.
But you're out here with your "Clovertown is better" and your "Bugs must be worked out" and your this and your that.
You know what? I have three Rev. A iMac Core Duo's in my house, and not a single one of them has had a bug, a crash, a freeze, or a problem of any sort. Rev. A.
HMMM. Maybe Apple does know how to do Rev. A. Just sometimes? Maybe? Perhaps?
Especially with their Quad Xeon 64 Bit Workstation which they've been working on for over a year?
Do you realise that in the procces of making these computers they work out the bugs themselves? They use the computers, and find all the bugs possible, and work them out?
What do you think all those apple workers have been doing for the last year and a half, if not working out bugs on their machines?
For anyone out there who has been needlessly influenced by this guy to wait for a system that will only be outdated by the one that will come after it, please uninfluence yourself, and buy the stupid computer that you want, when you want it.
Jeeshh!!
Multimedia
Jul 21, 12:20 PM
It really depends on your application.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
jaydub
Sep 18, 11:09 PM
Is it happening on a tuesday, perchance? :D
Macnoviz
Jul 20, 08:07 AM
heavy
It looks like 2006 won't be like 1984
It looks like 2006 won't be like 1984
cwedl
Jul 27, 09:49 AM
at last, I may be able to build a system that will run Vista well!
sam10685
Aug 11, 01:19 PM
Now what I WANT that might not happen:
8) Lightweight, small FF
that would be a definite for Apple... also, i think this thing will be really really awesome considering the fact that Steve Jobs himself is already boasting about it... he never does that prior to a release. (unless he's previewing something for us like he just did with Leopard.)
8) Lightweight, small FF
that would be a definite for Apple... also, i think this thing will be really really awesome considering the fact that Steve Jobs himself is already boasting about it... he never does that prior to a release. (unless he's previewing something for us like he just did with Leopard.)
shamino
Jul 14, 04:01 PM
I think we'll see more cores per cpu before we see 3GHz. IMHO, 4,8 or more cores at 2.66 is far better than 1 or 2 cores at 3GHz.
Intel has already announced 3GHz Woodcrest CPUs.
The question isn't about when the chips will become available but when Apple chooses to put one in a system.
Which might be in the first batch of systems. Remember, we're all discussing a rumor from an anonymous source, not an actual product announcement.
Intel has already announced 3GHz Woodcrest CPUs.
The question isn't about when the chips will become available but when Apple chooses to put one in a system.
Which might be in the first batch of systems. Remember, we're all discussing a rumor from an anonymous source, not an actual product announcement.
Silentwave
Jul 14, 04:54 PM
ONLY DDR2-667?!? :confused:
Come on Apple, you'd BETTER use DDR2-800 or I'll be pissed! :mad:
Actually I'm surprised Aidenshaw didn't pick up on this.
The specs provided are
CLEARLY FAKE!
You'd think they'd at least get the RAM right.
Woodcrest requires the use of FB-DIMM (fully-buffered DIMM) RAM, dual channel, available at 533 or 667mhz speeds. ECC built in. Though technically this is using DDR2 chips, it is referenced as a distinct type, including in Intel's publications. It does not use plain DDR like the low end spec posted in the article (and will transition to DDR3 as those become available).
(edit: toned down the sizes, they were hurting my eyes :) )
Come on Apple, you'd BETTER use DDR2-800 or I'll be pissed! :mad:
Actually I'm surprised Aidenshaw didn't pick up on this.
The specs provided are
CLEARLY FAKE!
You'd think they'd at least get the RAM right.
Woodcrest requires the use of FB-DIMM (fully-buffered DIMM) RAM, dual channel, available at 533 or 667mhz speeds. ECC built in. Though technically this is using DDR2 chips, it is referenced as a distinct type, including in Intel's publications. It does not use plain DDR like the low end spec posted in the article (and will transition to DDR3 as those become available).
(edit: toned down the sizes, they were hurting my eyes :) )
Mr. Retrofire
Apr 6, 10:24 PM
And you obvioulsy don't understand what a GPGPU API is for. What good is running code through an API whose purpose is to offload your CPU by using ... your CPU.
See, that is exactly not the purpose of OpenCL. OpenCL can also use specialized DSPs, if someone writes a compiler for them. OpenCL is GPU-independent, which is a problem, if you want to optimize your OpenCL-code for a specific GPU.
If you really need the power of a GPU you could use CUDA and/or STREAM (the standards in the past 4 years). Most computer science labs use CUDA. No one needs OpenCL at the moment, because the solutions which work are based on CUDA and/or STREAM, not OpenCL.
This will change a bit in the next ten years, but the hardware-dependent languages CUDA/STREAM will never be replaced by OpenCL, at least not for high performance applications, which require direct GPU-access.
OpenCL is like C, you can use on CPUs, GPUs and DSPs.
See, that is exactly not the purpose of OpenCL. OpenCL can also use specialized DSPs, if someone writes a compiler for them. OpenCL is GPU-independent, which is a problem, if you want to optimize your OpenCL-code for a specific GPU.
If you really need the power of a GPU you could use CUDA and/or STREAM (the standards in the past 4 years). Most computer science labs use CUDA. No one needs OpenCL at the moment, because the solutions which work are based on CUDA and/or STREAM, not OpenCL.
This will change a bit in the next ten years, but the hardware-dependent languages CUDA/STREAM will never be replaced by OpenCL, at least not for high performance applications, which require direct GPU-access.
OpenCL is like C, you can use on CPUs, GPUs and DSPs.
FreeState
Feb 28, 08:23 PM
They still can not have valid sacramental marriage
Fornication doesn't matter if the person doesn't care about the religious connotations of marriage
Here let me fix that for you:
They Gays and lesbians still can not have a valid sacramental Catholic marriage.
Fornication doesn't matter if the person doesn't care about the religious connotations of marriage Catholicism view of fornication and marriage.
---
There are Christian Churches that perform marriage for any loving couple, regardless of orientation. The Catholic Church does not dictate doctrine for all Christians.
Fornication doesn't matter if the person doesn't care about the religious connotations of marriage
Here let me fix that for you:
They Gays and lesbians still can not have a valid sacramental Catholic marriage.
Fornication doesn't matter if the person doesn't care about the religious connotations of marriage Catholicism view of fornication and marriage.
---
There are Christian Churches that perform marriage for any loving couple, regardless of orientation. The Catholic Church does not dictate doctrine for all Christians.
