eseminario
Jun 9, 01:42 AM
Anybody knows if thebunlocked version will be available on launch day too?
Piggie
Apr 25, 02:33 PM
Perhaps this is like CCTV systems in the workplace.
You are allowed by law to fit them, however staff must be told they are there.
Perhaps it's just that the public need to be made away this is being done, and not done secretly. If people knew, then this would be a non story in the 1st place.
You are allowed by law to fit them, however staff must be told they are there.
Perhaps it's just that the public need to be made away this is being done, and not done secretly. If people knew, then this would be a non story in the 1st place.
Nuck81
Sep 1, 08:45 AM
I'm going to use my $20 credit from Metroid to pre order this...
shadowfax
Jul 27, 04:13 PM
Well it's back to the future for all of us. Remember when the Mac was going 64-bit with the introduction of the G5 PowerMac on June 23, 2003? :rolleyes: Only more thanthree years later and we're doing it all over again thanks to Yonah's 7 month retrograde.
This may be a bit of a disappointment, but I think that Merom is still in the "past:" merom is not a 64-bit chip. None of these Core 2's are. They just have EM64T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM64T), which allows them to address more than 4 GB of memory directly. These are not true 64-bit processors like the G5--that is, the Core 2 Duo won't work with 64-bit applications. The G5's Intel counterpart would, I think, bit the Itanium chip, based on intel's IA-64 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA-64) Architecture, which is truly 64 bit in every way. Merom simply contains a 64-bit extension to the IA-32 (x86) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_architecture#64-bit) architecture, which I understand is still a 32-bit architecture. We're not out of the woods yet...
This may be a bit of a disappointment, but I think that Merom is still in the "past:" merom is not a 64-bit chip. None of these Core 2's are. They just have EM64T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM64T), which allows them to address more than 4 GB of memory directly. These are not true 64-bit processors like the G5--that is, the Core 2 Duo won't work with 64-bit applications. The G5's Intel counterpart would, I think, bit the Itanium chip, based on intel's IA-64 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA-64) Architecture, which is truly 64 bit in every way. Merom simply contains a 64-bit extension to the IA-32 (x86) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_architecture#64-bit) architecture, which I understand is still a 32-bit architecture. We're not out of the woods yet...
logandzwon
Apr 19, 02:51 PM
The First Commercial GUI
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5659/star1vg.gif
Xerox's Star workstation was the first commercial implementation of the graphical user interface. The Star was introduced in 1981 and was the inspiration for the Mac and all the other GUIs that followed.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7892/leopardpreviewdesktop4.jpghttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5733/xerox8010star.gif
-The Star was not a commercial product. Xerox didn't sell them. (Well eventually they did, but not as PCs. they were to be similar to what we'd call a terminal today.)
-the middle image is actually of an Apple Lisa. I think you were just showing as a comparison, but some people might think your saying it's a Star. It's not. It's a Lisa.
-Apple compensated Xerox for the ideas borrowed from the Star. SJ and the mac team were already working on the GUI before any of them ever saw the Star though. Also, Macintosh 1 wasn't a copy of the Star. In fact a lot of the stables of a modern GUI today were innovated by Apple for the Macintosh.
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5659/star1vg.gif
Xerox's Star workstation was the first commercial implementation of the graphical user interface. The Star was introduced in 1981 and was the inspiration for the Mac and all the other GUIs that followed.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7892/leopardpreviewdesktop4.jpghttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5733/xerox8010star.gif
-The Star was not a commercial product. Xerox didn't sell them. (Well eventually they did, but not as PCs. they were to be similar to what we'd call a terminal today.)
-the middle image is actually of an Apple Lisa. I think you were just showing as a comparison, but some people might think your saying it's a Star. It's not. It's a Lisa.
-Apple compensated Xerox for the ideas borrowed from the Star. SJ and the mac team were already working on the GUI before any of them ever saw the Star though. Also, Macintosh 1 wasn't a copy of the Star. In fact a lot of the stables of a modern GUI today were innovated by Apple for the Macintosh.
takao
Dec 1, 12:46 PM
the difficulty of the special stages/licenses tests is varying a lot .. on some of the 'b'-license tests i had to try 10 times to even get a silver medal edging out those 0.010 of a second and on the 'a' license tests i managed to get 4 gold ratings on the first try and once beating the needed time by more than half a second
as for the second top gear challenge... for me it's next to impossible ... your lotus seem to have tires which seem to slide around corners much more and the AI somehow manages to break much, much, MUCH harder than you can:
i was driving along around 40 meters behind one and went on full brakes when i saw their braking lights and still got disqualified for slamming into their back like a madman ... what gives
i found the first n�rburgring specials much easier than the first top gear challenge
after trying out the nascar challenges: :confused:... honestly they should have rather spent their money on getting more recent street cars ... thanks for having 10+ premium nascar cars :rolleyes:
as for the second top gear challenge... for me it's next to impossible ... your lotus seem to have tires which seem to slide around corners much more and the AI somehow manages to break much, much, MUCH harder than you can:
i was driving along around 40 meters behind one and went on full brakes when i saw their braking lights and still got disqualified for slamming into their back like a madman ... what gives
i found the first n�rburgring specials much easier than the first top gear challenge
after trying out the nascar challenges: :confused:... honestly they should have rather spent their money on getting more recent street cars ... thanks for having 10+ premium nascar cars :rolleyes:
Nuck81
Dec 7, 04:20 PM
So another patch for today adding mechanical damage. Must have the newest firmware...
only online so far. It was a good fix, cuts down on the bumper cars in certain rooms...
only online so far. It was a good fix, cuts down on the bumper cars in certain rooms...
REDolution
Apr 10, 04:20 AM
All the rumours appear to be about FCP8, does anyone else think that DVDSP, STP, Motion, Compressor and Color have all been left as is?
SevenInchScrew
Aug 19, 09:21 AM
I'm 100% sure the GT site says all the cars were remodeled for the ps3, as in not the ps2 cars.
http://us.gran-turismo.com/us/news/d5247.html
recreated
As in not copypasta'd over from gt4.
All that I get from that quote is that they are using older models, but that they will, obviously, be rendered in the new GT5 engine. So, the marketing team can say all they want, but actual screen shots of Standard� cars do not show much improvement, if any at all, resolution increase notwithstanding.
Do we know if all cars have fully modelled interiors or if thats just for the luxury cars?
No, the only cars that have an interior view are the Premium� models. From NSB's link above...
Standard cars do not support vehicle interior camera views.
http://us.gran-turismo.com/us/news/d5247.html
recreated
As in not copypasta'd over from gt4.
All that I get from that quote is that they are using older models, but that they will, obviously, be rendered in the new GT5 engine. So, the marketing team can say all they want, but actual screen shots of Standard� cars do not show much improvement, if any at all, resolution increase notwithstanding.
Do we know if all cars have fully modelled interiors or if thats just for the luxury cars?
No, the only cars that have an interior view are the Premium� models. From NSB's link above...
Standard cars do not support vehicle interior camera views.
Blue Velvet
Mar 22, 08:15 AM
How many of those in the first list have the capability of fielding an airforce?
Precisely. The UN mandate is to enforce a no-fly zone, amongst other things, tasks that are particularly suited for certain nations. I'm no gung-ho supporter of this action in Libya, but it strikes me as similar to Bosnia, with the real political pressure coming particularly from France for very real reasons.
Expect the overt US involvement to rapidly scale back soon.
Funny also that we heard a DAMN THING from the media regarding the fact that ONLY CONGRESS can declare war.
Did Ronald Reagan get a go-ahead from Congress in 1986 for attacking Libya?
Precisely. The UN mandate is to enforce a no-fly zone, amongst other things, tasks that are particularly suited for certain nations. I'm no gung-ho supporter of this action in Libya, but it strikes me as similar to Bosnia, with the real political pressure coming particularly from France for very real reasons.
Expect the overt US involvement to rapidly scale back soon.
Funny also that we heard a DAMN THING from the media regarding the fact that ONLY CONGRESS can declare war.
Did Ronald Reagan get a go-ahead from Congress in 1986 for attacking Libya?
~Shard~
Jul 14, 02:37 PM
To charge $1800 for a system that only has 512MB is a real disappoitment. 1GB RAM oughta be standard, especially with Leopard being on the horizon.
Agreed. I can make an argument for the consumer machines, where perhaps 512 MB is sufficient for basic users. Specifically, why force them to pay more for 1 GB if they don't need it. But when it comes to the Pro machines, as if anyone buying one of these beasts is not going to require at least 2 GB of RAM, let alone 1 GB. No one buys a quad Xeon Powermac to just surf the Internet and check their e-mail. :cool:
Agreed. I can make an argument for the consumer machines, where perhaps 512 MB is sufficient for basic users. Specifically, why force them to pay more for 1 GB if they don't need it. But when it comes to the Pro machines, as if anyone buying one of these beasts is not going to require at least 2 GB of RAM, let alone 1 GB. No one buys a quad Xeon Powermac to just surf the Internet and check their e-mail. :cool:
0815
Apr 6, 04:13 PM
debacle? The debacle that's sucking 51% of the profit in the entire smartphone industry? http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/01/31/apple-is-still-sucking-most-of-the-profit-out-of-the-mobile-phone-business/
Market share isn't everything.
B
Finally someone who gets it ....
Some smart-phone OS providers pay companies to put their OS on the devices (not good for profit) and others gain a big market share without making any money.
But at the end - those are all companies that need to make money. And who wins at the end of the day: Whoever makes most money. Market share might be good for some sort of reputation and bragging rights - but if it doesn't bring any money into the bank it is good for nothing. Those are not charities - those are busnisses that have to face at the end of the day the share holders.
So it also doesn't matter if Xoom sells only 100.000 Units and Apple sells many millions. The Xoom would still be a win if it would bring more money home (but this is where the true fail of the Xoom is)
Market share isn't everything.
B
Finally someone who gets it ....
Some smart-phone OS providers pay companies to put their OS on the devices (not good for profit) and others gain a big market share without making any money.
But at the end - those are all companies that need to make money. And who wins at the end of the day: Whoever makes most money. Market share might be good for some sort of reputation and bragging rights - but if it doesn't bring any money into the bank it is good for nothing. Those are not charities - those are busnisses that have to face at the end of the day the share holders.
So it also doesn't matter if Xoom sells only 100.000 Units and Apple sells many millions. The Xoom would still be a win if it would bring more money home (but this is where the true fail of the Xoom is)
ksz
Sep 20, 07:44 PM
Jobs and Raskin were both proponents of that concept, and it lives in in some of the userbase.
I had the pleasure of meeting Jef Raskin at his home in Pacifica a year before he passed away. He loved to play musical instruments and performed a short recital on his piano. Later that evening, after showing his Apple I in a wooden box, he encouraged me to read his book The Humane Interface and let him know what I thought about it. Sadly, I wasn't able to do that in time. But the conversation we had made it clear that he was not a fan of Steve Jobs. They both had strong opinions on various aspects of UI design. Even though I rather like OS X, Raskin politely argued against the inefficiencies of that design.
It was some time ago and I don't remember all the details from that night, but Raskin, I think, was more scientific in his approach. He preferred to study user response rates, time-to-decision, amount of eye movement, amount of pointer movement, number of mouse clicks, and various other factors that might contribute to 'dead' or wasted time.
I had the pleasure of meeting Jef Raskin at his home in Pacifica a year before he passed away. He loved to play musical instruments and performed a short recital on his piano. Later that evening, after showing his Apple I in a wooden box, he encouraged me to read his book The Humane Interface and let him know what I thought about it. Sadly, I wasn't able to do that in time. But the conversation we had made it clear that he was not a fan of Steve Jobs. They both had strong opinions on various aspects of UI design. Even though I rather like OS X, Raskin politely argued against the inefficiencies of that design.
It was some time ago and I don't remember all the details from that night, but Raskin, I think, was more scientific in his approach. He preferred to study user response rates, time-to-decision, amount of eye movement, amount of pointer movement, number of mouse clicks, and various other factors that might contribute to 'dead' or wasted time.
GQB
Mar 31, 05:07 PM
This is a smart move. It had to happen sooner or later.
John Gruber would ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Wow... classless AND wrong at the same time. Care to go for the hat trick and throw in 'fanboi' too?
John Gruber would ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Wow... classless AND wrong at the same time. Care to go for the hat trick and throw in 'fanboi' too?
daneoni
Aug 25, 02:58 PM
Well i guess they've become so popular it hurts...literally
FF_productions
Jul 15, 12:54 AM
Here's hoping you're right. I think including 512 MB of RAM standard would be a bit of a slap in the face if Apple is releasing these supposedly "advanced" machines. What kind of advanced PowerMac has only 512 MB of RAM standard? ;) :cool:
It would be ridiculous if it came with just 512 mb's of ram...
Steve Jobs-"The New Octa-Core Mac Pro with 512 mb's of ram" It just doesn't fit...
It would be ridiculous if it came with just 512 mb's of ram...
Steve Jobs-"The New Octa-Core Mac Pro with 512 mb's of ram" It just doesn't fit...
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 ;)
elmimmo
Aug 17, 04:09 AM
It's frustrating to see all the work that anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=10) went through to make the benchmarks, for such a ****** comparison they decided to do in the first place.
They are comparing a 2 generations old G5 (Dual 2,5) versus a new Intel (Quad 2,6) which is not even the fastest out there. What kind of comparison is that? If the new Intels you are comparing against are all Quad based, the only reasonable G5 to compare against is the fastest one out there, the Quad G5 @2,5, because it is the fastest, and because it is even at core count. And they do not even mention it exists. And since you take the trouble to do so, compare fastest G5 against fastes Intel, gosh.
They could as well have compared any Mac Pro against an iMac DV�
They are comparing a 2 generations old G5 (Dual 2,5) versus a new Intel (Quad 2,6) which is not even the fastest out there. What kind of comparison is that? If the new Intels you are comparing against are all Quad based, the only reasonable G5 to compare against is the fastest one out there, the Quad G5 @2,5, because it is the fastest, and because it is even at core count. And they do not even mention it exists. And since you take the trouble to do so, compare fastest G5 against fastes Intel, gosh.
They could as well have compared any Mac Pro against an iMac DV�
georgethomas
Apr 7, 09:54 AM
haha u cant stop technology from growing. ;)
rwilliams
Jun 8, 09:30 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)
On launch day at the Apple store, are there usually separate lines for pre-orders and walk-up customers, or is it one enormous line?
On launch day at the Apple store, are there usually separate lines for pre-orders and walk-up customers, or is it one enormous line?
maclaptop
Apr 14, 04:48 PM
still, you cannot say the iphone is the best smartphone on the market, just as someone else can't say the atrix is the best. Different strokes for different folks!
+1
+1
mrsir2009
Apr 6, 01:10 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
I have a 13" ultimate of the current generation. The limiting factor for me is the graphics, not the processor. so going to sandy bridge with the intel 3000 would be a less appealing machine for my uses than the current model. It's really too bad the sandy bridge macs are tied to those garbage integrated graphics.
...Or scummy ATI. I love the NVIDIA in my Core2Duo MBP :D
I have a 13" ultimate of the current generation. The limiting factor for me is the graphics, not the processor. so going to sandy bridge with the intel 3000 would be a less appealing machine for my uses than the current model. It's really too bad the sandy bridge macs are tied to those garbage integrated graphics.
...Or scummy ATI. I love the NVIDIA in my Core2Duo MBP :D
yoak
Apr 12, 07:25 AM
I'm on a 2006 Mac Pro 2.66GHz.
I never set up QMaster. It's installed, but I never touched it. Mpeg2 (highest quality double pass) saturates all cores.
EDIT: sending to compressor from the timeline doesn't change. FCP and compressor together use 350% CPU (400% max).
Very interesting, could you check your batch monitor to see if it uses every core to compress?.
I think maybe we are talking past each other and it�s my mistake. For Compressor to use all of the machines CORES you have to do what I described. This speeds up the rendering times as every core work at 80-90%, each core rendering a chunk (1/8) of the file.
I never set up QMaster. It's installed, but I never touched it. Mpeg2 (highest quality double pass) saturates all cores.
EDIT: sending to compressor from the timeline doesn't change. FCP and compressor together use 350% CPU (400% max).
Very interesting, could you check your batch monitor to see if it uses every core to compress?.
I think maybe we are talking past each other and it�s my mistake. For Compressor to use all of the machines CORES you have to do what I described. This speeds up the rendering times as every core work at 80-90%, each core rendering a chunk (1/8) of the file.
mashinhead
Jul 27, 11:48 AM
Yes. I believe people who have gotten their hands on Core 2 Duo beta chips have put them in their mini's with no difference (except a massive speed boost)
so cn you put it in a mb too?
so cn you put it in a mb too?
0 comments:
Post a Comment