wnurse
Nov 29, 12:41 AM
I can't wait until Steve laughs in their faces. Who the hell do these guys think they are?
Hmm, the people that can tell apple to go screw themselves and take their music of itunes, that's who. One studio threatening to ask for a piece of ipods is not as threatening if they all do... what you gonna do, not buy music at all?.. of course you will buy music. You'll curse the studios but you'll buy music (and if not you, mom and pop will still buy music even if not available on itunes).
Wil universal get what they want?.. Apple is not totally powerless in this potential negotiation but i doubt steve has the power to laugh in their faces. Apple does not make music, it sells it. A seller can hardly laugh in the face of the producer of goods (or the gatekeeper of those goods). Want proof?.. walmart vs apple. Apple makes ipods.. Walmart refused to deal with apple the way apple wanted.. guess who lost in that battle.. walmart of course.. they are merely a seller, apple is the gatekeeper of ipods. The same is with the music studios.. apple is a seller, music companies are the gatekeepers. They can dictate who can and can't sell their music and while every corporation is motivated by profits.. they can always take their music and go home. Sure they lose but so does apple or they can make their music exclusively available only on microsoft service. You might not buy the music but you aren't 300 miliion americans. I gurantee apple does not want to be sitting by idly watching microsoft steal a market they grew. Naw, steve is not laughing in anyone's face.
Hmm, the people that can tell apple to go screw themselves and take their music of itunes, that's who. One studio threatening to ask for a piece of ipods is not as threatening if they all do... what you gonna do, not buy music at all?.. of course you will buy music. You'll curse the studios but you'll buy music (and if not you, mom and pop will still buy music even if not available on itunes).
Wil universal get what they want?.. Apple is not totally powerless in this potential negotiation but i doubt steve has the power to laugh in their faces. Apple does not make music, it sells it. A seller can hardly laugh in the face of the producer of goods (or the gatekeeper of those goods). Want proof?.. walmart vs apple. Apple makes ipods.. Walmart refused to deal with apple the way apple wanted.. guess who lost in that battle.. walmart of course.. they are merely a seller, apple is the gatekeeper of ipods. The same is with the music studios.. apple is a seller, music companies are the gatekeepers. They can dictate who can and can't sell their music and while every corporation is motivated by profits.. they can always take their music and go home. Sure they lose but so does apple or they can make their music exclusively available only on microsoft service. You might not buy the music but you aren't 300 miliion americans. I gurantee apple does not want to be sitting by idly watching microsoft steal a market they grew. Naw, steve is not laughing in anyone's face.
JeffreyGreen
Apr 25, 03:09 PM
"Federal Marshals need a warrant. . . . . "
Duh, the police always have to jump over a higher bar . . . I, personally, can come into your home, take your bag of cocaine, and go give it to the police and it will be admissible, even though the cops need a warrant. (I can be sued for breaking and entering, etc., but the drugs are still admissible
Also, there is a case in California, upheld by the 9th Circuit, that says the police do NOT need a warrant to come onto your property and place a GPS tracking device on your car and track you and your car. It might get overturned at the USSC, but today, it is legal. Their legal theory is that you don�t have a right to privacy on PUBLIC roads, and it also isn't unreasonable to think that no one would ever come on your property, uninvited. . salesmen, delivery people, the neighbor, etc. So, unless your yard is fenced, and/or clearly posted NO TRESPASSING, the police can put that GPS on your car.
Duh, the police always have to jump over a higher bar . . . I, personally, can come into your home, take your bag of cocaine, and go give it to the police and it will be admissible, even though the cops need a warrant. (I can be sued for breaking and entering, etc., but the drugs are still admissible
Also, there is a case in California, upheld by the 9th Circuit, that says the police do NOT need a warrant to come onto your property and place a GPS tracking device on your car and track you and your car. It might get overturned at the USSC, but today, it is legal. Their legal theory is that you don�t have a right to privacy on PUBLIC roads, and it also isn't unreasonable to think that no one would ever come on your property, uninvited. . salesmen, delivery people, the neighbor, etc. So, unless your yard is fenced, and/or clearly posted NO TRESPASSING, the police can put that GPS on your car.
Cory Bauer
Apr 12, 08:00 PM
Yeah no kidding...they should have taken the "New" off the page at least a year ago.
No kidding, right? Also, fancy meeting you here, Jester :cool:
No kidding, right? Also, fancy meeting you here, Jester :cool:
dethmaShine
Apr 20, 09:12 AM
Sure manufacturers always have a couple of design laying arund just in case.
Reality of course is samsung had bene designing that for quit some time as were others .
Nice how you ignore LG completly. How could they have copied (what apple is now sueing samsung over) when they showed there phone before apple? Or did apple copy from prada, following your logique they did.
Seriously the iPhone looks like Prada? I'd got to be blind to not notice that.
The only similarity is the rounded corners and even the rounded corners look very different.
What exactly is similar if I may know?
Reality of course is samsung had bene designing that for quit some time as were others .
Nice how you ignore LG completly. How could they have copied (what apple is now sueing samsung over) when they showed there phone before apple? Or did apple copy from prada, following your logique they did.
Seriously the iPhone looks like Prada? I'd got to be blind to not notice that.
The only similarity is the rounded corners and even the rounded corners look very different.
What exactly is similar if I may know?
amols
Aug 6, 08:52 AM
Not lame. Childish. I mean seriously. Is your (Generic your.) MBP any slower the day after they announce Core 2 MBPs? I swear to god it's almost as if people's lives are so incomplete that they need to feel special by having the top of the dog pile hardware. I received my MBP on Feb 21st at 10:30AM. Apple can do whatever they want. I'll still be enjoying my Mac at the same level I did on the 21st.
Well...I've used and ENJOYED iMac G4 for five years which is still going strong by the way. I just can't help but wonder how stupid and childish it is to expect that Apple will upgrade it already awesome MBP. The Merom CPU has very minor perforformance benefit over Yonah until Santa Rosa is out next year. It has double the L2 catch, 140M more transistors and 3 Watt/hour more cons (34W/H) than Yonah (31W/H). Conroe with faster FSB is a totally different story. So I personally have nothing against those poor souls expecting new notebooks but sympothy.
Well...I've used and ENJOYED iMac G4 for five years which is still going strong by the way. I just can't help but wonder how stupid and childish it is to expect that Apple will upgrade it already awesome MBP. The Merom CPU has very minor perforformance benefit over Yonah until Santa Rosa is out next year. It has double the L2 catch, 140M more transistors and 3 Watt/hour more cons (34W/H) than Yonah (31W/H). Conroe with faster FSB is a totally different story. So I personally have nothing against those poor souls expecting new notebooks but sympothy.
ariechel
Jul 29, 11:05 AM
Of course, the problem with waiting until Paris for consumer upgrades like MacBook is that Apple will entirely miss the educational buying season, losing one of the largest markets for its consumer products...
If my memory serves me correctly, new models are hardly ever introduced in time for the educational buying season. Whether this is by design (Apple can probably make the highest profit margins off selling somewhat older products at the same price point) or by chance, I don't know.
There does seem to be a lot of wishful thinking about what Apple "has to do" because of educational buying season, competition with other PC manufacturers, whatever. From the business and engineering point of view, Apple may have very good reasons to delay releases beyond what we think is "reasonable."
If my memory serves me correctly, new models are hardly ever introduced in time for the educational buying season. Whether this is by design (Apple can probably make the highest profit margins off selling somewhat older products at the same price point) or by chance, I don't know.
There does seem to be a lot of wishful thinking about what Apple "has to do" because of educational buying season, competition with other PC manufacturers, whatever. From the business and engineering point of view, Apple may have very good reasons to delay releases beyond what we think is "reasonable."
Rm.237
Apr 8, 08:33 AM
Just to let y'all know, unless someone else knows otherwise, Best Buy makes zero off Apple product sales (that haven't been marked up).
I read this thread and I noted that someone pointed out that BB apparently marks up some items -Airports, Time Machines, etc. I found this odd since Apple controls all the pricing, but eh, not going to question that since those are the facts I'm assuming (can't be bothered to go on a comparing spree).
Anyway, the iPad 2s aren't marked up, thus they make zero.
Each department should be meeting their budget daily. How do they do that? By selling products they make notional margin and that allows that department to meet their budget. On a slow, sh-tty day, a department may only be 70% to budget; on a fast, awesome day, a department may be 110% to budget.
But when you make zero off iPad sales, keeping them away from customers does not help notional margin. Doesn't bring them any closer to hitting budget. The only way they'd make money on that iPad sale would be selling accessories or the Black Tie protection. But that's entirely something else.
Best Buy makes zero notional margin on iPad sales, so they're not withholding stock to meet daily budgets.
I can't explain why they're doing this, but given my knowledge, I can invalidate the claim that managers are hoarding iPads so that they can meet budget every day.
Cheers! :D
Margin is not the same as the budget. On a sales graph they represent two different things entirely. Course as they say in retail margin is king. At the same time the budget is that big flashy number that everyone wants to hit.
I read this thread and I noted that someone pointed out that BB apparently marks up some items -Airports, Time Machines, etc. I found this odd since Apple controls all the pricing, but eh, not going to question that since those are the facts I'm assuming (can't be bothered to go on a comparing spree).
Anyway, the iPad 2s aren't marked up, thus they make zero.
Each department should be meeting their budget daily. How do they do that? By selling products they make notional margin and that allows that department to meet their budget. On a slow, sh-tty day, a department may only be 70% to budget; on a fast, awesome day, a department may be 110% to budget.
But when you make zero off iPad sales, keeping them away from customers does not help notional margin. Doesn't bring them any closer to hitting budget. The only way they'd make money on that iPad sale would be selling accessories or the Black Tie protection. But that's entirely something else.
Best Buy makes zero notional margin on iPad sales, so they're not withholding stock to meet daily budgets.
I can't explain why they're doing this, but given my knowledge, I can invalidate the claim that managers are hoarding iPads so that they can meet budget every day.
Cheers! :D
Margin is not the same as the budget. On a sales graph they represent two different things entirely. Course as they say in retail margin is king. At the same time the budget is that big flashy number that everyone wants to hit.
blahblah100
Mar 31, 05:30 PM
Just speaking to your 'year of the linux' quote that's all.
I completely agree, but let's be honest, Apple and Microsoft fans are no different.
I completely agree, but let's be honest, Apple and Microsoft fans are no different.
zero2dash
Jul 20, 09:24 AM
...Quad Duo?
...Quadra Duo?
...the "holy hell this is faster than you'll ever need" Mac? :D
...Quadra Duo?
...the "holy hell this is faster than you'll ever need" Mac? :D
Dagless
Aug 22, 10:55 AM
It wasn't the controls that made it suck. It was the lack of campaign, lack of fine tuning and the 4 car limit. Heck take a hit in the graphics department to free up more disc space and have more cars per race!
hexor
Mar 26, 08:24 AM
People may not realize that Mac OS X Server will be INCLUDED with the client version of OS X Lion. This in itself was a several hundred dollar product. Not only does it make running your own server even easier for non-techies it simplifies the OS X product version choices from 2 down to 1. And licensing for that broken up into single or family pack.
How many different versions of Windows does MS sell? :p I can't even figure out the number of versions of Windows MS makes, it is at least a couple dozen while Apple provides the same equivalent functionality in only 2 (single/family pack). The overhead in managing all those different versions is mind-bongling.
How many different versions of Windows does MS sell? :p I can't even figure out the number of versions of Windows MS makes, it is at least a couple dozen while Apple provides the same equivalent functionality in only 2 (single/family pack). The overhead in managing all those different versions is mind-bongling.
janstett
Sep 13, 01:11 PM
Sheesh...just when I'm already high up enough on Apple for innovating, they throw even more leaps and bounds in there to put themselves even further ahead. I can't wait 'til my broke @$$ can finally get the money to buy a Mac and chuck all my Windows machines out the door.
I'm sure we'll see similar efforts from other PC manufacturers eventually, but let's see the software use those extra cores in Windows land. Ain't gonna happen...not on the level of what Apple's doing at least.
First, this is INTEL innovating, not Apple.
Second, Apple has been the one lagging behind on multiprocessor support. Pre OSX it was a joke of a hack to support multi CPUs in Mac OS and you had to have apps written to take advantage of it with special libraries.
On Windows, the scheduler automatically handles task scheduling no matter how many processors you have, 1 or 8. Your app doesn't have to "know" it's on a single or multiple processor system or do anything special to take advantage of multiple processors, other than threading -- which you can do on a single processor system anyway. Most applications are lazy and unimaginative, and do everything in a single thread (worse, the same thread that is processing event messages from the GUI, which is why apps lock up -- when they end up in a bad state they stop processing events from the OS and won't paint, resize, etc.). But when you take advantage of multithreading, there are some sand traps but it's a cool way to code and that's how you take advantage of multiple cores without having to know what kind of system you are on. I would assume OSX, being based on BSD, is similar, but I don't know the architecture to the degree I know Windows.
In Windows, you can set process "affinity", locking it down to a fixed processor core, through Task Manager. Don't know if you can do that in OSX...
I'm sure we'll see similar efforts from other PC manufacturers eventually, but let's see the software use those extra cores in Windows land. Ain't gonna happen...not on the level of what Apple's doing at least.
First, this is INTEL innovating, not Apple.
Second, Apple has been the one lagging behind on multiprocessor support. Pre OSX it was a joke of a hack to support multi CPUs in Mac OS and you had to have apps written to take advantage of it with special libraries.
On Windows, the scheduler automatically handles task scheduling no matter how many processors you have, 1 or 8. Your app doesn't have to "know" it's on a single or multiple processor system or do anything special to take advantage of multiple processors, other than threading -- which you can do on a single processor system anyway. Most applications are lazy and unimaginative, and do everything in a single thread (worse, the same thread that is processing event messages from the GUI, which is why apps lock up -- when they end up in a bad state they stop processing events from the OS and won't paint, resize, etc.). But when you take advantage of multithreading, there are some sand traps but it's a cool way to code and that's how you take advantage of multiple cores without having to know what kind of system you are on. I would assume OSX, being based on BSD, is similar, but I don't know the architecture to the degree I know Windows.
In Windows, you can set process "affinity", locking it down to a fixed processor core, through Task Manager. Don't know if you can do that in OSX...
CdnBook
Apr 11, 09:15 AM
Apple will release faster unicorns tomorrow, duh
Eniregnat
Aug 7, 03:34 PM
It looks like the improvements to Universal Access (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/universalaccess/) alone will encourage me to upgrade. Finally better TTS voices! I just purchased two voices from Cepstral (http://www.cepstral.com/). I wonder if Apple will provide voices with an accent. I have grown fond of the British accented “Millie” voice. Luckely, I think the lybrary extensions that Cepstral offers are UB.
Brandon Sharitt
Sep 13, 07:25 AM
While Clovertown and Kenstfield ar interesting as probably going to be the first consumer quad core CPUs, they are currently much like Intels initial stabs at Dual Core, which were largely two Pentium chips jammed together. What will be interesting to see is the second generation Intel quad cores and (probably) first generation AMD quad core CPUs, which should be to Kenstfield and Clovertown as the Core Duo family is to the dual core Pentium 4s, though maybe not quite the same performance jump.
Brandon4692
Jun 21, 09:55 PM
I've been reading this whole post and I'm finally gonna chime in. I went into my local radioshack the day of pre orders/request and they took down my info and tried getting me a pin... They called me back the next day saying they couldn't get any. But their website says they will have the iPhone 4 "coming soon" so I'm nervous about if they will have some at launch so I went to the same store and the idiot behind the counter had no clue about what he was talking about (different guy than before) he said to try on Thursday cause they won't know till actually Thursday if/when they will get them. I may be an idiot for trusting radioshack but I want to trade in my 3GS so... I'll be waiting outside of my radioshack atleast an hour before they open on Thursday. Wish me luck!
evilgEEk
Aug 12, 12:08 AM
Apple won't put GPS in unless they can create a whole new 'Apple' interface for it.
I'm no GPS expert, but I'm not sure how they could do that with a simple candybar phone. It would need to be some sort of smartphone / pocketPC thing.
I don't think size is much of an issue with GPS. The Chocolate by LG is a candybar slider and it has GPS in it.
I'm no GPS expert, but I'm not sure how they could do that with a simple candybar phone. It would need to be some sort of smartphone / pocketPC thing.
I don't think size is much of an issue with GPS. The Chocolate by LG is a candybar slider and it has GPS in it.
Ensoniq
Jul 28, 12:12 AM
Just to clarify a few things...
Merom does NOT use less power than Yonah. The cause of confusion about this is that Merom DOES use less power than the Pentium M. And Conroe uses less power than the Pentium D and Pentium 4. And Woodcrest uses less power than the previous Xeon chips. So people are confusing the latter as a misrepresentation of the former.
Merom uses the same amount of power essentially per MHz as Yonah. However, it is 20% more efficient than Yonah is. So while putting Merom into any of the current machines will NOT make them cooler or use less power than the Yonah versions, they will all:
1 - Be approximately 20% faster at the same MHz rating.
2 - Have 64-bit capability.
3 - Have enhanced SSE (closer to AltiVec than previous Intel chips.)
Some of the Merom chips also have twice the L2 cache (4 MB vs. 2 MB) which would also increase speeds, but the other items above are more important in the grand scheme of things.
Merom does NOT use less power than Yonah. The cause of confusion about this is that Merom DOES use less power than the Pentium M. And Conroe uses less power than the Pentium D and Pentium 4. And Woodcrest uses less power than the previous Xeon chips. So people are confusing the latter as a misrepresentation of the former.
Merom uses the same amount of power essentially per MHz as Yonah. However, it is 20% more efficient than Yonah is. So while putting Merom into any of the current machines will NOT make them cooler or use less power than the Yonah versions, they will all:
1 - Be approximately 20% faster at the same MHz rating.
2 - Have 64-bit capability.
3 - Have enhanced SSE (closer to AltiVec than previous Intel chips.)
Some of the Merom chips also have twice the L2 cache (4 MB vs. 2 MB) which would also increase speeds, but the other items above are more important in the grand scheme of things.
FFTT
Sep 13, 11:07 PM
The current Mac Pro and even the Core Duo 2 iMacs are both amazing upgrades
to what most people were running 2 years ago.
Generally, I recommend waiting for those who already have a working OSX Tiger
machine.
However, if you NEED a new Pro workstation, the Mac Pro will pay for itself
in productivlty.
We also don't know how cool these new quad core processors will run.
At least we do know that the current Mac Pro is extemely quiet with power to spare.
to what most people were running 2 years ago.
Generally, I recommend waiting for those who already have a working OSX Tiger
machine.
However, if you NEED a new Pro workstation, the Mac Pro will pay for itself
in productivlty.
We also don't know how cool these new quad core processors will run.
At least we do know that the current Mac Pro is extemely quiet with power to spare.
Amazing Iceman
Apr 25, 01:36 PM
I would bet anything that these two "customers" happen to also be lawyers.
They just can't earn clean money, always have to rip some one to earn it.
They just can't earn clean money, always have to rip some one to earn it.
sinisterdesign
Jul 20, 10:09 AM
eight cores + Tiger = Octopussy?!?
Reach9
Mar 26, 12:49 AM
Already done eh? Sounds great, can't wait to see it in WWDC.
janstett
Sep 15, 08:26 AM
And of course, NT started as a reimplementation of VMS for a failed Intel RISC CPU...
More pedantic details for those who are interested... :)
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
More pedantic details for those who are interested... :)
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
shawnce
Aug 21, 10:59 AM
Mac Pros will need 64bit Leopard to achieve their full multi-core potential.
You care to define "their full multi-core potential"?
You care to define "their full multi-core potential"?
No comments:
Post a Comment