coder12
Apr 5, 07:05 PM
YES!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyqUj3PGHv4)
sparkleytone
Mar 26, 08:42 AM
The first time this thought crossed my mind was when I first used WriteRoom, to write a paper. Many seem to think (and Apple has intimated as much) that Full Screen Apps originated from iOS. I think this is wrong. I think Apple first thought about these with WriteRoom, which is why Pages was the first App to get the Full Screen treatment.
Combining it with the new form of spaces is a genius move though.
The idea has definitely been around for a while, but it�s the details of the *implementation* that make it so refreshing. I love and use Spaces, but as it stands in SL it�s just not a feature for every user. Mission Control + Full-screen apps very much is.
Yet another unimpressive "major" update to an O/S that's showing it's age and irrelevance.
Yet another complaint post that shows its originator�s lack of knowledge regarding the subject being commented on.
Compared to the iDevice world, the computer side of Apple has ground to a halt.
Just�false.
Enough!! Combine MacOS and iOS already!!! The transition is so painfully slow, would someone else in tech get off their lazy ass and prod these guys to move a LITTLE quicker?!?
How is this possibly a good idea? Their shells are completely different because they�re targeted at completely different UI paradigms. The underpinnings are generally comparable already, but to argue that they need to be merged is just asinine.
Combining it with the new form of spaces is a genius move though.
The idea has definitely been around for a while, but it�s the details of the *implementation* that make it so refreshing. I love and use Spaces, but as it stands in SL it�s just not a feature for every user. Mission Control + Full-screen apps very much is.
Yet another unimpressive "major" update to an O/S that's showing it's age and irrelevance.
Yet another complaint post that shows its originator�s lack of knowledge regarding the subject being commented on.
Compared to the iDevice world, the computer side of Apple has ground to a halt.
Just�false.
Enough!! Combine MacOS and iOS already!!! The transition is so painfully slow, would someone else in tech get off their lazy ass and prod these guys to move a LITTLE quicker?!?
How is this possibly a good idea? Their shells are completely different because they�re targeted at completely different UI paradigms. The underpinnings are generally comparable already, but to argue that they need to be merged is just asinine.
gerrycurl
Jul 14, 05:59 PM
the question still remains--will the powermacs be able to use standard, off the shelf, pc video cards?
i know that you couldn't do so in the power architecture due to the bios irregularities. now that they're using efi, does this still mean we have to buy mac based cards? because that's really the question nobody seems to ask and nobody seems to have an answer for.
what this new mac workstation will mean is the chance to upgrade your macs based on commodity parts. no more mac tax for hardware. i remember when the radeon 9700 was king, the price was around $299 for pc version and $399 for mac version.
think about this, the ability to upgrade processor, video card, and sound card without having to pay the apple tax.
that's what it really comes down to. the speculative "good" version of the mac pro has a so-so video card, but it's not really worth the $600 more just to get a 1800, i'd rather just get the 1600 and upgrade on my own.
i know that you couldn't do so in the power architecture due to the bios irregularities. now that they're using efi, does this still mean we have to buy mac based cards? because that's really the question nobody seems to ask and nobody seems to have an answer for.
what this new mac workstation will mean is the chance to upgrade your macs based on commodity parts. no more mac tax for hardware. i remember when the radeon 9700 was king, the price was around $299 for pc version and $399 for mac version.
think about this, the ability to upgrade processor, video card, and sound card without having to pay the apple tax.
that's what it really comes down to. the speculative "good" version of the mac pro has a so-so video card, but it's not really worth the $600 more just to get a 1800, i'd rather just get the 1600 and upgrade on my own.
Lollypop
Jul 20, 08:41 AM
It's the future, you know, soon the clock speed will be irrelevant and we'll be expressing processor speed in number of cores octocore, hexacore, tricontradicore, hexacontetracore, hecticosoctocore, and such and such
At some point your going to have deminished returns. Sure multimedia apps can take advantage of a few more cores, but I dont see Mail running faster on 4 cores, nevermind 2! The nice thing about intel is that they seem to realise that, and have invested in improved IO as well, look at Pci express and SATA, you can have the fastest processor in the world, but if your running it with 512megs of memory your going to slow down fast!
eautiful love quotes
eautiful love quotes for
eautiful love quotes
Beautiful Love Wallpapers,
+love+quotes+wallpapers
eautiful quotes on life
.jpg "Beautiful+love+quotes+")
Beautiful+love+quotes+
eautiful love wallpapers with
best love quotes wallpapers
eautiful love wallpapers for
eautiful love wallpapers with
Beautiful Love Wallpapers With
eautiful love wallpapers with
sweet love quotes wallpapers.
eautiful love wallpapers
At some point your going to have deminished returns. Sure multimedia apps can take advantage of a few more cores, but I dont see Mail running faster on 4 cores, nevermind 2! The nice thing about intel is that they seem to realise that, and have invested in improved IO as well, look at Pci express and SATA, you can have the fastest processor in the world, but if your running it with 512megs of memory your going to slow down fast!
Dan==
Jul 27, 04:53 PM
Very nice, indeed... (of course, i expect that Apple release something much more beautiful than waht you did :D :p :D)
Thanks, and yes, me too. I just hope they do something to fill that headless hole between the mini and pro. And I hope the innards are more accessible than the mini.
Thanks, and yes, me too. I just hope they do something to fill that headless hole between the mini and pro. And I hope the innards are more accessible than the mini.
swingerofbirch
Aug 27, 02:29 AM
What do you guys think the new iMac specs will be like?
Let's say on the 17" iMac maybe a 250 gig hard disk, 1 gb ram, upgraded video card, and conroe at some speed who cares what for $1299? Sounds sweet but not outrageously impossible.
Let's say on the 17" iMac maybe a 250 gig hard disk, 1 gb ram, upgraded video card, and conroe at some speed who cares what for $1299? Sounds sweet but not outrageously impossible.
magbarn
Apr 10, 03:23 AM
The backlit keyboard thing kinda makes me laugh. Every macbook Ive ever owned has not had the backlit keyboard. I even bought a aluminum unibody and still got screwed out of a backlit keyboard. Finally I got a 2010 mac pro and got the backlit keyboard. what did i do? enjoy it for 2 days then turn it off to save battery life. the keyboard light is always off now and the brightness is set to minimum. so much for that.
Sorry not all of us are blessed with 'night vision' I dunno about your advanced genetics, but using my MBA on minimum setting will give me a headache in about 3 minutes.
Sorry not all of us are blessed with 'night vision' I dunno about your advanced genetics, but using my MBA on minimum setting will give me a headache in about 3 minutes.
gkarris
Mar 22, 01:18 PM
My Wife says no....
;)
;)
cjc81
Sep 19, 11:31 AM
I don't think you've got anything to worry about there...
Looks like your order is going to be delayed, in your favour =)
Looks like your order is going to be delayed, in your favour =)
Full of Win
Apr 10, 01:16 PM
I'll bet money that Apple will make FCP into what Express should be.
I think many are sharpening our digital pitch forks in preparation of the announcement from Apple.
I think many are sharpening our digital pitch forks in preparation of the announcement from Apple.
stormj
Aug 11, 01:41 PM
Here are some of the issues with the iPod phone.
In order to make the biggest splash, it will have to be available in both GSM and CDMA versions so that all of the big 4 carriers can use it. GSM is the international standard, so I'm sure they will have that *at least*.
In order for it to matter, it will have to be able to access the music store over the air. Have you tried downloading an MP3 file, even on an EDGE connection? It sucks.
The delay here has more to do with the networks. Until the 3G networks are fully rolled out (EV-DO on Verizon, UTMS on GSM, etc. etc.) and available beyond a few cities, this phone will just frustrate people. (Verizon's rollout has gone much further, but I would think given that CDMA is rare outside of the US that that fails to compensate for the fact that the GSM 3G is still in just a few markets.)
The latest rumor is that wide-spread UTMS roll out will be in Q1 2007. When that happens, we'll see an iPod phone. It's not as if Apple couldn't have made an Apple-rific phone by now. The limitation isn't theirs, it's the networks'.
In the meantime, you can get an HTC Tytn that will use 3G world wide and will play MediaPlayer... if you're into M$.
In order to make the biggest splash, it will have to be available in both GSM and CDMA versions so that all of the big 4 carriers can use it. GSM is the international standard, so I'm sure they will have that *at least*.
In order for it to matter, it will have to be able to access the music store over the air. Have you tried downloading an MP3 file, even on an EDGE connection? It sucks.
The delay here has more to do with the networks. Until the 3G networks are fully rolled out (EV-DO on Verizon, UTMS on GSM, etc. etc.) and available beyond a few cities, this phone will just frustrate people. (Verizon's rollout has gone much further, but I would think given that CDMA is rare outside of the US that that fails to compensate for the fact that the GSM 3G is still in just a few markets.)
The latest rumor is that wide-spread UTMS roll out will be in Q1 2007. When that happens, we'll see an iPod phone. It's not as if Apple couldn't have made an Apple-rific phone by now. The limitation isn't theirs, it's the networks'.
In the meantime, you can get an HTC Tytn that will use 3G world wide and will play MediaPlayer... if you're into M$.
kansast
Nov 28, 09:43 PM
yea no thanks. i pay for my music anyway. got to support the "band" you know :)
Who's to say that if I buy an iPod that I would ever want to put any of Universal's music on it //
Who's to say that if I buy an iPod that I would ever want to put any of Universal's music on it //
WhySoSerious
Mar 22, 03:47 PM
"The first iteration of Galaxy Tab 10.1 measured in at 246.2 x 170.4 x 10.9 mm and weighed 599g; this new, slimmer version is 256.6 x 172.9 x 8.6 mm and 595g."
We lost 4 grams WAHAHAHAHA !
i could laugh at the same thing concerning the ipad 1 vs ipad 2.
the ipad 2 really isn't much thinner or lighter than the first version.
We lost 4 grams WAHAHAHAHA !
i could laugh at the same thing concerning the ipad 1 vs ipad 2.
the ipad 2 really isn't much thinner or lighter than the first version.
fivepoint
Apr 28, 09:50 AM
Imagine that, three responses which utterly fail to refute let alone dispute my clear and truthful argument. Instead, they leave snide remarks. No substance WHATSOEVER. :)
Moyank24
Mar 3, 10:28 PM
Being gay is not a sin, homosexual actions are a sin.
Eh...this is so 2000 years ago...
Luckily most of us that live in this century know better.
Eh...this is so 2000 years ago...
Luckily most of us that live in this century know better.
Mr. Savage
Apr 7, 10:46 PM
That's nothin'. I remember shortly after the new MacBook Air was released at BB I was playin' around with the demos and was listening to an older man with his teenage daughter talking to the salesman about getting one. Then I noticed they ONLY had the more expensive versions (bigger SSDs) on the price cards. The old guy was oblivious about the different versions and the daughter was spoiled so he agreed to buy her one. When the sales-twerp went into the back to find one I pulled up the inventory right there on the demo model and showed the guy the cheaper model. When the sales-kid came back out the old guy asked him if they had the cheaper model in stock. The kid played dumb and pretended he didn't even know there was such a thing. I helpfully pointed out the one on the inventory screen and its "In Stock" status.
Long story short: kid acts surprised and confused, goes gets one and old guy buys his daughter a $1350 (instead of $1650) computer to update her facebook status with and thanks me for not minding my own business ;)
Long story short: kid acts surprised and confused, goes gets one and old guy buys his daughter a $1350 (instead of $1650) computer to update her facebook status with and thanks me for not minding my own business ;)
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
n00bst3r
Sep 18, 11:51 PM
The thing is Apple is shooting itself in the foot because it knows that all the Prosumers research enough that they know there is better available. Apple is losing alot of sales by not being prepared. I would think that Apple would get 2nd priority to Dell on shipments so they should have a good stock of C2D.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 3, 10:05 AM
And I don't see the point in being sexually attracted to anyone of the opposite sex, but since society tells me it's "normal" I live with it nonetheless. It's all a matter of perception and experience. You have yours, I have mine and they're both normal to us.
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
yoak
Apr 12, 09:28 AM
http://applecritictv.blogspot.com/20...l-cut-pro.html
This was posted by another member, relaytv in another thread.
Interesting read while we wait
This was posted by another member, relaytv in another thread.
Interesting read while we wait
GekkePrutser
Apr 6, 12:36 PM
I completely disagree with that statement.
Well at least the iPad does have a backlit keyboard :p
Edit: But I agree, I own an iPad myself and while it serves its purpose brilliantly there's many things that can just not be done on it. Just wanted to say there's a few things it does have over the MacBook Air (the built-in 3G option is another)
Well at least the iPad does have a backlit keyboard :p
Edit: But I agree, I own an iPad myself and while it serves its purpose brilliantly there's many things that can just not be done on it. Just wanted to say there's a few things it does have over the MacBook Air (the built-in 3G option is another)
davisjw
Aug 12, 12:17 AM
Is this going to be a phone or more of a hybrid cell/ blackberry... Seeing as its from a computer company I hope its more of a hybrid and will be in perfect sync with my Macs!
djpuma
Apr 11, 12:44 PM
I've been living with this iphone 3g since it launched and didn't want the iphone 4 for antenna reasons.
Now if this is true that they will push back the iphone 5 release. I will seriously consider jumping platforms.
No point in getting a 4 since it's already outdated and I was hoping for the iphone 5 release in June/July.
I think this is a serious mistake on apple's part and yes, it would also be dumb to release the 5 in june and a 5.5 with LTE in January, but They could push the lte until june of 2012.
The androids are starting to look better and better as time goes on.
Now if this is true that they will push back the iphone 5 release. I will seriously consider jumping platforms.
No point in getting a 4 since it's already outdated and I was hoping for the iphone 5 release in June/July.
I think this is a serious mistake on apple's part and yes, it would also be dumb to release the 5 in june and a 5.5 with LTE in January, but They could push the lte until june of 2012.
The androids are starting to look better and better as time goes on.
guzhogi
Jul 20, 10:07 AM
First of all, you assume that it is possible to make "one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores". I don't think it is possible to do this (at least not with the x86 architecture using today's technology.)
But assuming such a chip exists, the answer depends on what kind of efficiency you're thinking of.
If you mean computational efficiency (meaning the most useful processing per clock-tick), then a single big core will do better. This is because single-threaded apps will be able to use the full power (whereas multiple threads are needed to take advantagte of multiple cores.) Also, the operating system can get rid of the overhead that is needed to keep software running on the multiple cores from stepping on each other.
If you mean energy efficiency (amount of processing per watt of electricity consumed), then it could go either way, depending on how the chips are made. But given today's manufacturing processes and the non-linear power curve that we see as clock speeds are increased, the multiple-core solution will almost definitely use less power.
I remember hearing about how it is possible to make multiple cores act like one (Idon't remember where I heard this). Anyways, whether 8 cores acting separately or together like 1 big processor has an advantage depends on the program you use. If the program is multi-threaded, then the cores acting separately might have the advantage while single threaded apps will have an advantage if the cores are acting like one. However, many apps today won't see that much improvement either way (like a simple calculator, or solitare and word processing).
But assuming such a chip exists, the answer depends on what kind of efficiency you're thinking of.
If you mean computational efficiency (meaning the most useful processing per clock-tick), then a single big core will do better. This is because single-threaded apps will be able to use the full power (whereas multiple threads are needed to take advantagte of multiple cores.) Also, the operating system can get rid of the overhead that is needed to keep software running on the multiple cores from stepping on each other.
If you mean energy efficiency (amount of processing per watt of electricity consumed), then it could go either way, depending on how the chips are made. But given today's manufacturing processes and the non-linear power curve that we see as clock speeds are increased, the multiple-core solution will almost definitely use less power.
I remember hearing about how it is possible to make multiple cores act like one (Idon't remember where I heard this). Anyways, whether 8 cores acting separately or together like 1 big processor has an advantage depends on the program you use. If the program is multi-threaded, then the cores acting separately might have the advantage while single threaded apps will have an advantage if the cores are acting like one. However, many apps today won't see that much improvement either way (like a simple calculator, or solitare and word processing).