mmmcheese
Aug 11, 02:32 PM
Although I'd be interested in an Apple created phone (depending on what it turned out to be), I doubt they will come out with a CDMA version....so in the end I'll be SOL anyway...
Hawaga
Apr 5, 05:31 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; fr-fr) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)
Well, if it's a dramatic improvement, I may start looking into it...
...A proud Avid user ;)
Well, if it's a dramatic improvement, I may start looking into it...
...A proud Avid user ;)
gregorsamsa
Aug 27, 11:36 AM
Thanks mate, of course I vent my disappointment regarding the overall quality issues. In any case, it should not be luck to catch a good piece of hardware from a company like APPLE, right? It seems as if the hardware quality has in general decreased, I suspect partly because of the place where this hardware is now manufactured... CHINA. I have my own experience on a corporate level with a large mobile phone manufacturer...
I found that there is a general lack of understanding what quality should be, and especially how long it should last:rolleyes:
CIAO
I agree, it shouldn't be luck. Also, whilst I'm trying to keep an open mind about these issues, I think it's pertinent that quite a few people have pointed to the China-connection as partly responsible for some of the hardware problems. I guess a company like Dell, who sell some very cheap computers, can always get away with imperfect products more so. Because people buying Apple know that they're paying a premium for a certain extra Apple quality, they're entitled to expect Apple to consistently deliver.
I'm definitely not going to excuse Apple for a seemingly alarming number of faults with their first batch of Intel laptops. There's an apparent problem here, however debatable the degree of it, & it needs sorting out. I'd be interested, however, in seeing some statistics about the percentage of faulty laptops from Apple, perhaps over a 12 month period, & how that compares with similarly-priced PC laptops.
Certainly, before I make my next computer purchase (a 15.4" laptop next year), I'll be paying careful attention to Macrumors, & particularly any postings about the quality, or otherwise, of the latest Mac computers.
I found that there is a general lack of understanding what quality should be, and especially how long it should last:rolleyes:
CIAO
I agree, it shouldn't be luck. Also, whilst I'm trying to keep an open mind about these issues, I think it's pertinent that quite a few people have pointed to the China-connection as partly responsible for some of the hardware problems. I guess a company like Dell, who sell some very cheap computers, can always get away with imperfect products more so. Because people buying Apple know that they're paying a premium for a certain extra Apple quality, they're entitled to expect Apple to consistently deliver.
I'm definitely not going to excuse Apple for a seemingly alarming number of faults with their first batch of Intel laptops. There's an apparent problem here, however debatable the degree of it, & it needs sorting out. I'd be interested, however, in seeing some statistics about the percentage of faulty laptops from Apple, perhaps over a 12 month period, & how that compares with similarly-priced PC laptops.
Certainly, before I make my next computer purchase (a 15.4" laptop next year), I'll be paying careful attention to Macrumors, & particularly any postings about the quality, or otherwise, of the latest Mac computers.
ChrisA
Jul 27, 12:18 PM
With things like this, my rule is: If you have to ask, then you can't do it :-(
How true. The processor is soldered to the logic board on the notebooks It is in a socket in the iMac. So yes iMacs will be easy to upgrade but MB and MBP will require conciderable level of skill and some very specialized equipment. There may be 3rd parties offing the upgrade some day
Why would they solder the CPU? Saves the space of a socket. Heat transfer is better, very little chance of it comming loose. Those socets add not a small amount of height to the chip
How true. The processor is soldered to the logic board on the notebooks It is in a socket in the iMac. So yes iMacs will be easy to upgrade but MB and MBP will require conciderable level of skill and some very specialized equipment. There may be 3rd parties offing the upgrade some day
Why would they solder the CPU? Saves the space of a socket. Heat transfer is better, very little chance of it comming loose. Those socets add not a small amount of height to the chip
ergle2
Sep 14, 10:49 PM
Really, completely new? As in, to Core 2 what the G5 was to G4? In just two years?? I guess they're really ramping things up... Core 3 Hexa Mac Pros, anyone?
Intel's stated plans as I understand them are thus:
A new micro-arch every 2 years. I don't think they mean brand new so much as "significant changes/improvements". Whether this is akin to Yonah->Conroe or Netburst->Conroe remains to be seen, but more like the former (or perhaps Pentium-M -> Merom -- Core Duo was very much a stop-gap). Little has been released about Nehalem, but at one time it was slated as "based on Banias/Dothan", due in 2005 and expected to ramp to 9/10GHz.
"Off" years will recieve derivative versions (e.g. Merom->Penryn), which appears to be mostly stuff like L2 cache increases, faster FSB speeds (at least while we have FSBs - 2008 looks like the year for DCI, finally), die shrinks, increasing the number of cores (expect at least one to be more cores on a single die instead of two dice/package), etc.
Die shrinks are currently scheduled for "off" years, in order to stablize the process ready for the new micro-arch in the following year so Intel doesn't need to deal with both new process and new arch at the same time, and presumably in part to keep speed increases coming in "off" years
Of course, roadmaps can change quite rapidly -- it's not that long ago that Whitfield was expected to debut late 2006 with DCI (FSB replacement). Whitfield was replaced by Tigerton which is now due sometime in 2007...
One thing's for sure, Intel appears to have learnt a great deal from the Netburst fiasco -- how not to do things, if nothing else. Unfortunately, they still estimate ~50% of processors shipping in 1Q2007 will be netburst-based (mostly Pentium-D).
Intel's stated plans as I understand them are thus:
A new micro-arch every 2 years. I don't think they mean brand new so much as "significant changes/improvements". Whether this is akin to Yonah->Conroe or Netburst->Conroe remains to be seen, but more like the former (or perhaps Pentium-M -> Merom -- Core Duo was very much a stop-gap). Little has been released about Nehalem, but at one time it was slated as "based on Banias/Dothan", due in 2005 and expected to ramp to 9/10GHz.
"Off" years will recieve derivative versions (e.g. Merom->Penryn), which appears to be mostly stuff like L2 cache increases, faster FSB speeds (at least while we have FSBs - 2008 looks like the year for DCI, finally), die shrinks, increasing the number of cores (expect at least one to be more cores on a single die instead of two dice/package), etc.
Die shrinks are currently scheduled for "off" years, in order to stablize the process ready for the new micro-arch in the following year so Intel doesn't need to deal with both new process and new arch at the same time, and presumably in part to keep speed increases coming in "off" years
Of course, roadmaps can change quite rapidly -- it's not that long ago that Whitfield was expected to debut late 2006 with DCI (FSB replacement). Whitfield was replaced by Tigerton which is now due sometime in 2007...
One thing's for sure, Intel appears to have learnt a great deal from the Netburst fiasco -- how not to do things, if nothing else. Unfortunately, they still estimate ~50% of processors shipping in 1Q2007 will be netburst-based (mostly Pentium-D).
Burnsey
Apr 27, 11:00 AM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2711155/posts?q=1&;page=101
There you have it. The birthers aren't satisfied. I knew it.
If this birth certificate said that Obama wasn't born in the US they would be singing a different tune. Heck they would be singing a different tune given the tiniest most unlikely evidence that he wasn't born in the US.
There you have it. The birthers aren't satisfied. I knew it.
If this birth certificate said that Obama wasn't born in the US they would be singing a different tune. Heck they would be singing a different tune given the tiniest most unlikely evidence that he wasn't born in the US.
ArchaicRevival
Apr 6, 02:10 PM
Epic. Fail.
Virtualball
Apr 19, 02:32 PM
It appears from the F700's standpoint though the natural progression became TouchWiz.
Wrong. Just because a company released one phone that has a similar look as the iPhone doesn't mean their current offerings are a progression of that phone. It's a true testament as to who browses this forum if you honestly think that. The F700 didn't run an advanced OS, so it probably ran Symbian or used BREW. That means all Samsung did was create a theme. How does a theme they made 3 years prior to the Galaxy S mean it's a progression on the coding and UI they built? It doesn't. Here's a list of every Samsung phone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Samsung_mobile_phones Now, pick out one of those and say it inspired all of their new devices 3 years later.
The F700 was an iPhone clone with a keyboard. It's depressing that people are saying that the iPhone copied its own clone.
Wrong. Just because a company released one phone that has a similar look as the iPhone doesn't mean their current offerings are a progression of that phone. It's a true testament as to who browses this forum if you honestly think that. The F700 didn't run an advanced OS, so it probably ran Symbian or used BREW. That means all Samsung did was create a theme. How does a theme they made 3 years prior to the Galaxy S mean it's a progression on the coding and UI they built? It doesn't. Here's a list of every Samsung phone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Samsung_mobile_phones Now, pick out one of those and say it inspired all of their new devices 3 years later.
The F700 was an iPhone clone with a keyboard. It's depressing that people are saying that the iPhone copied its own clone.
brianus
Sep 14, 12:56 PM
The server/desktop division with Windows - as with OS X - is one of marketing, not software. Windows "Workstation" and Windows "Server" use the same codebase.
True (today anyway; in the NT era they were indeed separate platforms though. Which brings me to my next point..)
Similarly, if you're one of the "Vista is just XP with a fancy skin" crowd, you've obviously not done much research. The changes in Vista are on par with the scale of changes Apple made to NeXT to get OS X.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
True (today anyway; in the NT era they were indeed separate platforms though. Which brings me to my next point..)
Similarly, if you're one of the "Vista is just XP with a fancy skin" crowd, you've obviously not done much research. The changes in Vista are on par with the scale of changes Apple made to NeXT to get OS X.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
majorp
Sep 19, 05:08 AM
Im still on for today, 4 hours and counting.
LaDirection
Jul 14, 04:36 PM
"Steve Jobs really must have been embarassed after claiming we'd have 3 ghz when we still can't even pass 2.7 ghz without a huge unstable liquid cooling system."
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.
""Steve Jobs really must have been embarassed after claiming we'd have 3 ghz when we still can't even pass 2.7 ghz without a huge unstable liquid cooling system."
IBM never produced chips that could run at 2.7GHz. In IBM was stuck at 2.2GHz instead of the 3GHz promised. Apple requested that chips be overclocked to 2.5GHz. In IBM was stuck at 2.3 GHZ, these chips were also overclocked to 2.7GHz. This year we are at Dual Cores 2.5Ghz. Even if Apple uses nothing but 2.66 GHz Dual cores, they will still be the fastest, non-overcloked chips that Apple has ever used.
"IMHO, 4,8 or more cores at 2.66 is far better than 1 or 2 cores at 3GHz."
8 cores?! Wow, maybe one day! But 2 or more cores/CPU are only good if your app can use them. Most applications, and in fact many of Apple, do not use more than 2 cores/CPUS. The Quad core G5's are a good example how the 3rd and 4th core are 98% or the time unused. A Dual 3GHz to a user would be much more usuefull than an 8 core 2.5GHz!
P.S. The number ONE problem that Apple must address in their pro line is the lack of Hard Drive bays! We need at least 4 HD, please! An internal 10,000 RPM RAID array is music to teh ears of pro video and film users.
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.
""Steve Jobs really must have been embarassed after claiming we'd have 3 ghz when we still can't even pass 2.7 ghz without a huge unstable liquid cooling system."
IBM never produced chips that could run at 2.7GHz. In IBM was stuck at 2.2GHz instead of the 3GHz promised. Apple requested that chips be overclocked to 2.5GHz. In IBM was stuck at 2.3 GHZ, these chips were also overclocked to 2.7GHz. This year we are at Dual Cores 2.5Ghz. Even if Apple uses nothing but 2.66 GHz Dual cores, they will still be the fastest, non-overcloked chips that Apple has ever used.
"IMHO, 4,8 or more cores at 2.66 is far better than 1 or 2 cores at 3GHz."
8 cores?! Wow, maybe one day! But 2 or more cores/CPU are only good if your app can use them. Most applications, and in fact many of Apple, do not use more than 2 cores/CPUS. The Quad core G5's are a good example how the 3rd and 4th core are 98% or the time unused. A Dual 3GHz to a user would be much more usuefull than an 8 core 2.5GHz!
P.S. The number ONE problem that Apple must address in their pro line is the lack of Hard Drive bays! We need at least 4 HD, please! An internal 10,000 RPM RAID array is music to teh ears of pro video and film users.
macrumors12345
Apr 19, 01:50 PM
It's ambiguous whether they mean the beginning of March, the end of March, or somewhere in between. This will have a huge impact on the iPad numbers since iPad 2 didn't go on sale until March 11, and has been severely constrained since then.
simie
Aug 17, 05:22 AM
I think that these tests are poor regardless of the results. Testing is all based on evidence and I see none, just what they say are the results.
When you run a test you normally document the process for the test conditions. You don't just say Photoshop CS2 - MP aware actions, but which ones - why didn't they use the Photoshop test.
"For FCP 5, we rendered a 20 second HD clip we had imported and dropped into a sequence."
Does this mean they imported a 20 second clip into a sequence and had to render the clip before it would play with the rest of the sequence.
They basically used the render tools in the sequence menu. Why measure something like that.
Thick Hairstyles For Round
long hairstyles for round
Mila Kunis hairstyle for round
long hairstyles for round
If you have a round face then
Round Face Shapes Hairstyles
When you run a test you normally document the process for the test conditions. You don't just say Photoshop CS2 - MP aware actions, but which ones - why didn't they use the Photoshop test.
"For FCP 5, we rendered a 20 second HD clip we had imported and dropped into a sequence."
Does this mean they imported a 20 second clip into a sequence and had to render the clip before it would play with the rest of the sequence.
They basically used the render tools in the sequence menu. Why measure something like that.
j_maddison
Jul 20, 11:53 AM
How fast do you want mail to go?
As fast as possible! Don't worry I do agree that e mail and browsing has very little to do with the processor speed, still you did ask the question! Now if only I could get a fibre link to my house without it costing a few hundred thousand Pounds a year hmm :rolleyes:
As fast as possible! Don't worry I do agree that e mail and browsing has very little to do with the processor speed, still you did ask the question! Now if only I could get a fibre link to my house without it costing a few hundred thousand Pounds a year hmm :rolleyes:
Chaszmyr
Jul 27, 10:04 AM
Rule 1 of Apple Events:
You never get all the marbles.
Very, very true. You usually only get half the things you expect... the real gem is when you get something you didn't expect.
You never get all the marbles.
Very, very true. You usually only get half the things you expect... the real gem is when you get something you didn't expect.
milo
Jul 27, 04:11 PM
I'm sorry. I thought that it was adequately implied that I meant the fastest chip, to date. Anyway, that's what I meant if I've been misunderstood.
I wasn't disagreeing with the "to date" part, just with the notion that a higher clock speed is the same as a faster chip.
The 2.7 G5 will continue to be the highest clocked chip in a mac to date. But chips with lower clock speeds will likely prove to be faster in benchmarks, meaning it's not the fastest chip.
I wasn't disagreeing with the "to date" part, just with the notion that a higher clock speed is the same as a faster chip.
The 2.7 G5 will continue to be the highest clocked chip in a mac to date. But chips with lower clock speeds will likely prove to be faster in benchmarks, meaning it's not the fastest chip.
p0intblank
Aug 5, 03:55 PM
I can't wait for Monday. I'll be working that day, so I am going to try to watch the keynote before reading any updates. I even have the Quicktime Events page bookmarked. :D I figured I would be more surprised by taking this route.
This is the first WWDC I'm really looking forward to, mainly because of what we're going to see... Leopard in action! :D
Edit: Peace, that's not entirely true. None of us know whether Apple will release Cinema Displays with iSights built-in. I'd say it is unlikely, but you never know until it actually happens.
This is the first WWDC I'm really looking forward to, mainly because of what we're going to see... Leopard in action! :D
Edit: Peace, that's not entirely true. None of us know whether Apple will release Cinema Displays with iSights built-in. I'd say it is unlikely, but you never know until it actually happens.
gnasher729
Aug 17, 03:42 AM
I think movie editing depends a lot on the speed of the disk subsystem. After all Mini DV is 12GB per hour. That's a of data. When yo "scrub" a shot all that data has to move off the disk and onto the video card. Even with 16MB of RAM not much of the video data can be help in RAM. So the G5 and Intel machine have disks that are about the same speed. Speed of a disk is measured by how fast the bit fly under the read/write head not the interface speed. So I am not surprized the Intel Mac Pro is not hugly faster for video.
Mini DV is 3,600,000 bytes per second. That is nothing. That is just slightly above what a wireless network will do.
Mini DV is 3,600,000 bytes per second. That is nothing. That is just slightly above what a wireless network will do.
batitombo
Apr 25, 02:20 PM
I'm so over this ****
gorgeousninja
Mar 23, 09:32 AM
LG and others had semi-smartphones with 3.5" screens back in 2006 and early 2007
If you ever used one of the LG phones or the numerous Japanese keitai's of that time then you'd know, that even though they were cutting edge for the time, they were still nowhere near being 'smartphones'.
Terrible UI with endless menu's, confusing icons, and new features randomly bolted on.
No matter how much the petty minded haters want to see it, the truth is that Apple made a quantum leap forward with the iPhone, and some people ought to be a little less bitter and more thankful for it.
If you ever used one of the LG phones or the numerous Japanese keitai's of that time then you'd know, that even though they were cutting edge for the time, they were still nowhere near being 'smartphones'.
Terrible UI with endless menu's, confusing icons, and new features randomly bolted on.
No matter how much the petty minded haters want to see it, the truth is that Apple made a quantum leap forward with the iPhone, and some people ought to be a little less bitter and more thankful for it.
notabadname
Mar 22, 02:01 PM
The screen is not 50% smaller. Nice way of making yourself look stupid.
Playbook has that elusive flash support out of the box which every apple fanboy wants to hide under the rug.
OS is more eloquent than iOS.
Well, if you are going to tell people their posts make them look stupid, perhaps you should consider your own, and read a dictionary before throwing around three syllable words. Your use of the word "eloquent" is incorrect. "Eloquent" is not a word that applies to a software operating system.
Eloquent: The quality of artistry and persuasiveness in speech or writing; the practice or art of using language with fluency and aptness; fluent, forcible, elegant or persuasive speaking in public.
As in; "Your post was not eloquent".
Playbook has that elusive flash support out of the box which every apple fanboy wants to hide under the rug.
OS is more eloquent than iOS.
Well, if you are going to tell people their posts make them look stupid, perhaps you should consider your own, and read a dictionary before throwing around three syllable words. Your use of the word "eloquent" is incorrect. "Eloquent" is not a word that applies to a software operating system.
Eloquent: The quality of artistry and persuasiveness in speech or writing; the practice or art of using language with fluency and aptness; fluent, forcible, elegant or persuasive speaking in public.
As in; "Your post was not eloquent".
Eidorian
Aug 26, 05:50 PM
Anyone know of benchmarks comparing the core duo with the core 2 duo?http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom#Benchmarks
Zadillo
Aug 27, 04:50 PM
Another person who grasps it.
Again, come on now...... it's not a question of whether people grasp it. It's question of who finds it funny and who doesn't. It's possible to "grasp" a joke and still not find it funny once it has been done to death. Just because someone doesn't think it is funny doesn't mean you have to insult their intelligence by saying they just don't "grasp" it.
Again, come on now...... it's not a question of whether people grasp it. It's question of who finds it funny and who doesn't. It's possible to "grasp" a joke and still not find it funny once it has been done to death. Just because someone doesn't think it is funny doesn't mean you have to insult their intelligence by saying they just don't "grasp" it.
NoSmokingBandit
Aug 16, 02:18 PM
Shift was good, but i thought it was really easy. Its also very forgiving, you dont need to have a lot of driving skill to finish the top races because drifting is really easy to control, you can enter turns quite a bit faster than you should, and you'll have more money than you know what to do with.
are you rich then? :p
i only hope that GT5 is more realistic then simulated this time..
I drive a Focus, so... no :D
Most people will never be able to afford a ford GT, but most people would be able to save up and buy a WRX and put a little work into it (even if it does take a few years of saving extra money), so i just find it more fun to push a WRX to its limits instead of a GT.
are you rich then? :p
i only hope that GT5 is more realistic then simulated this time..
I drive a Focus, so... no :D
Most people will never be able to afford a ford GT, but most people would be able to save up and buy a WRX and put a little work into it (even if it does take a few years of saving extra money), so i just find it more fun to push a WRX to its limits instead of a GT.
No comments:
Post a Comment