Blue Fox
Apr 25, 01:56 PM
I dont understand how anyone would get the info from your phone.
And even if they did, what would they do with it? Go to my friends house and come visit me at my address? All that information has been in the local phone book for decades.
Not to mention, doesn't the file only store the nearest cell tower and/or WiFi network? I've even read that it can be 2-5 miles aways from where you were even at, hardly the "tracking" people make it out to be.
And even if they did, what would they do with it? Go to my friends house and come visit me at my address? All that information has been in the local phone book for decades.
Not to mention, doesn't the file only store the nearest cell tower and/or WiFi network? I've even read that it can be 2-5 miles aways from where you were even at, hardly the "tracking" people make it out to be.
iliketyla
Mar 31, 02:33 PM
Let the Apple fanboys begin patting each other on the back, and taking something and running wild with it.
By the end of this thread, it'll be impossible to decipher what the original story was about.
By the end of this thread, it'll be impossible to decipher what the original story was about.
nefan65
Apr 25, 02:08 PM
They're suing...doesn't mean it'll go to court. They may find there's not enough grounds for suit, and deny...
waldobushman
Mar 26, 04:40 PM
It's this mentality that makes me smile.
Without knowing any of the details as to what the final shipping version will be, mezmerized (hypnotized ?) by Apple, enthusiasts are ready to pay whatever Apple demands for the product.
I get to sit back without any effort, and watch with delight as they pour the money into Apples coffers. In turn, my vast amount of Apple stock climbs higher & higher as they brag about Apples Billions.
Their blind trust pays me well. Thanks Apple !
Of course one should upgrade to the next OS X release. Apple makes substantial changes in each major release; if not functionally, then in refactoring code for future enhancements. I'll wait until it is known to be stable, and know that the software I use will run under the new version.
Apple is not MS. I stayed with Windows XP until Windows 7 was reasonably stable. The only reason to not move to the new OS would be lack of support for current hardware. Not likely to happen with Lion.
Without knowing any of the details as to what the final shipping version will be, mezmerized (hypnotized ?) by Apple, enthusiasts are ready to pay whatever Apple demands for the product.
I get to sit back without any effort, and watch with delight as they pour the money into Apples coffers. In turn, my vast amount of Apple stock climbs higher & higher as they brag about Apples Billions.
Their blind trust pays me well. Thanks Apple !
Of course one should upgrade to the next OS X release. Apple makes substantial changes in each major release; if not functionally, then in refactoring code for future enhancements. I'll wait until it is known to be stable, and know that the software I use will run under the new version.
Apple is not MS. I stayed with Windows XP until Windows 7 was reasonably stable. The only reason to not move to the new OS would be lack of support for current hardware. Not likely to happen with Lion.
Blue Fox
Apr 25, 01:35 PM
Only Apple? The Android system does the same thing, AND sends the information off to Google. The iPhone/iPad just logs the data to a file. Seems a bit unfair to me, but we'll see.
DeathChill
Aug 7, 10:18 PM
Running the preview now... some nice developer level stuff that I cannot ebelish on however beyond what was talked about in the keynote.
The new Core Animation stuff looks simple yet powerful and will increase the visual effects and feedback that application can do with only minor work on their part.
Also new Xcode Tool capabilities are well... great to have (need to review what is available publicly before I can comment more).
Next spring Apple will have a good answer to Vista with little disruption to end users and developers (unlike Vista).
So it's fair to say that developers have received their copy of Leopard?
The new Core Animation stuff looks simple yet powerful and will increase the visual effects and feedback that application can do with only minor work on their part.
Also new Xcode Tool capabilities are well... great to have (need to review what is available publicly before I can comment more).
Next spring Apple will have a good answer to Vista with little disruption to end users and developers (unlike Vista).
So it's fair to say that developers have received their copy of Leopard?
Silentwave
Aug 18, 10:17 AM
I know if it is it will work, what i'm asking is, is it? Or is that not known at this time?
Not known. There might be other concerns apart from the socket compatibility: FSB, firmware, and in particular the heat output.
Not known. There might be other concerns apart from the socket compatibility: FSB, firmware, and in particular the heat output.
Gurutech
Aug 7, 08:16 PM
Yes, absolutely:
Enhanced 64-bit Support
Leopard delivers 64-bit power in one, universal OS. Now Cocoa and Carbon application frameworks, as well as graphics, scripting, and the rest of the system are all 64-bit. Leopard delivers 64-bit power to both Intel- and PowerPC-based Macs, so you don�t have to install separate applications for different machines. There�s only one version of Mac OS X, so you don�t need to maintain separate operating systems for different uses.
Bridge the Generation Gap
Now that the entire operating system is 64-bit, you can take full advantage of the Xeon chip in Mac Pro and Xserve. You get more processing power at up to 3.0GHz, without limiting your programs to command-line applications, servers, and computation engines. From G3 to Xeon, from MacBook to Xserve, there is just one Leopard.
Wait. Does this mean that the Leopard doesn't support current MBP or MB? the ones that use 32 bit Yonah based Core Duo CPU.
Enhanced 64-bit Support
Leopard delivers 64-bit power in one, universal OS. Now Cocoa and Carbon application frameworks, as well as graphics, scripting, and the rest of the system are all 64-bit. Leopard delivers 64-bit power to both Intel- and PowerPC-based Macs, so you don�t have to install separate applications for different machines. There�s only one version of Mac OS X, so you don�t need to maintain separate operating systems for different uses.
Bridge the Generation Gap
Now that the entire operating system is 64-bit, you can take full advantage of the Xeon chip in Mac Pro and Xserve. You get more processing power at up to 3.0GHz, without limiting your programs to command-line applications, servers, and computation engines. From G3 to Xeon, from MacBook to Xserve, there is just one Leopard.
Wait. Does this mean that the Leopard doesn't support current MBP or MB? the ones that use 32 bit Yonah based Core Duo CPU.
hyperpasta
Nov 28, 06:27 PM
And I don't understand why they should...Can somebody explain it?
The rationale is that iPods are used only for stolen music (which they aren't) and this will help offset the losses (which it won't).
The rationale is that iPods are used only for stolen music (which they aren't) and this will help offset the losses (which it won't).
ergle2
Sep 20, 03:51 PM
Umm. What happened in here?
Can we reurn to some common respect please? This spat isn't constructive.
True enough.
I ... well, I won't go there, too likely to throw more fuel on the fire.
I'll drop it if she does, fair enough?
Can we reurn to some common respect please? This spat isn't constructive.
True enough.
I ... well, I won't go there, too likely to throw more fuel on the fire.
I'll drop it if she does, fair enough?
arkitect
Mar 22, 12:55 PM
Competition is good.
I agree.
But who in their right minds would want to own something called a Playbook? :o
I agree.
But who in their right minds would want to own something called a Playbook? :o
phatpat88
Jul 15, 12:43 AM
So excited... How come no FW800 infront? thats a little crazy no?
Right now the only device I use for FW800 are Hard drives... I would rather have a 2nd USB 2.0 in front than the 800
Right now the only device I use for FW800 are Hard drives... I would rather have a 2nd USB 2.0 in front than the 800
xxBURT0Nxx
Apr 7, 09:54 AM
It's not false per say, at least not 100%. Of course, graphics in such systems are usually IGPs, but before the Core iX line of processors, anyone could license and build chipsets for these processors and include a different IGP than Intel did. Intel however refused to license this for the new processors, including the SB line and thus nVidia who was making chipsets could not produce an IGP for the new platform.
So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.
So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
I know about the whole nvidia/intel lawsuit, but to say that intel forced apple to use the IGP is not correct imo. Yes they may have said if you want to use integrated graphics, they must be our integrated graphics on sandy bridge, but obviously apple could still have chosen to use discrete graphics as they did in some of the macbook pros, however seeing them absent on the airs and the 13" mbp shows that apple didn't have enough space to include discrete on top of the new processors. I see what you are saying, but the op said intel made apple use their graphics in a machine that costs this much!?!? not true apple could have easily added amd graphics if they wanted to, however due to cost/design/whatever they use integrated graphics in their smaller laptops!
So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.
So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
I know about the whole nvidia/intel lawsuit, but to say that intel forced apple to use the IGP is not correct imo. Yes they may have said if you want to use integrated graphics, they must be our integrated graphics on sandy bridge, but obviously apple could still have chosen to use discrete graphics as they did in some of the macbook pros, however seeing them absent on the airs and the 13" mbp shows that apple didn't have enough space to include discrete on top of the new processors. I see what you are saying, but the op said intel made apple use their graphics in a machine that costs this much!?!? not true apple could have easily added amd graphics if they wanted to, however due to cost/design/whatever they use integrated graphics in their smaller laptops!
zacman
Apr 19, 03:29 PM
2.5 million more? Apple has likely sold more than double then number of iPhones in q1 2011 than q1 2010 (8.75 million).
I'm speaking about estimated Q1/11 to Q4/10 numbers (the est. Q1/11 numbers is what that news was about...). And what about reading the graphs I posted yourself? :rolleyes:
I'm speaking about estimated Q1/11 to Q4/10 numbers (the est. Q1/11 numbers is what that news was about...). And what about reading the graphs I posted yourself? :rolleyes:
alent1234
Apr 27, 08:19 AM
This is a lie
Keeping a database of our general location is logging our location. :mad: Does Apple really think this double talk, where they say they keep a database of location but don't log the location is going to fly?
At least our overlord will now, I hope, stop collecting location data when location services are turned off. It's a disgrace that it took a media storm to shame them into action.
this is how skyhook wireless worked. apple just does it themselves now
Keeping a database of our general location is logging our location. :mad: Does Apple really think this double talk, where they say they keep a database of location but don't log the location is going to fly?
At least our overlord will now, I hope, stop collecting location data when location services are turned off. It's a disgrace that it took a media storm to shame them into action.
this is how skyhook wireless worked. apple just does it themselves now
Macinposh
Aug 17, 02:55 PM
I have a new 3.0 Intel- just letting you know they are not as close as Rob's test under real world performance. Adobe camera raw really screamed on my G5 and is noticibly slower and a bit buggy on my new Mac Pro. Start up is alot slower, etc, etc. He only tested MP aware processes which isn't the whole picture.
Have you used cs2s or canon�s raw converters? How do they work?
What is the general feeling of yours how the new machine works in photog business?
2 x 2 drive stripe raids.
So you have 4hdds in total,with 2 of each in raid 0 or what?
Do you have the os on one pair and scratch on the other pair?
Ordering the new rig in couple of weeks,so i am buggin you now.
Have you used cs2s or canon�s raw converters? How do they work?
What is the general feeling of yours how the new machine works in photog business?
2 x 2 drive stripe raids.
So you have 4hdds in total,with 2 of each in raid 0 or what?
Do you have the os on one pair and scratch on the other pair?
Ordering the new rig in couple of weeks,so i am buggin you now.
Scarlet Fever
Jul 20, 08:23 AM
wow. 8 cores. *drool
and i was just getting used to dual cores...
i cant wait till they turn up as refurbs... ill own one faster than you can say "no you dont"
and i was just getting used to dual cores...
i cant wait till they turn up as refurbs... ill own one faster than you can say "no you dont"
shamino
Jul 20, 09:58 AM
No I think you are confused. :) I meant "Is having more cores, lets say 8, more efficient than one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores?"
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.
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.
rjheys
Mar 26, 05:57 AM
I still don't get it, why do we apple users have to pay for os updates? The hardware is already expensive as hell.
You know the best version of Windows 7 costs nearly 10x the price of the best version of OS X. ~$300 compared to $29. Thats a big difference.
You know the best version of Windows 7 costs nearly 10x the price of the best version of OS X. ~$300 compared to $29. Thats a big difference.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 01:50 PM
I could also ask why the rest of the world doesn't get with the program and move to better technology with CDMA2000 like the US and parts of Asia have?
As I said before GSM has 81% of the market. UMTS (W-CDMA) enable hand-over back and forth UMTS and GSM. CDMA2000 can not do hand-over between GSM and CDMA2000. (See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W-CDMA): "The CDMA family of standards (including cdmaOne and CDMA2000) are not compatible with the W-CDMA family of standards that are based on ITU standards.")
Hence all networks that has GSM will transfer to UMTS since this decrases their initial investment as they transfer from 2/2.5G to 3G. Changing network standad is expensive, but the GSM/EDGE marketshare has been growing in US and will most likely continue to grow. At the same time CDMA is non-existant in europe.
The conclusion is simple - CDMA2000 is in the long run as dead as betamax.
As I said before GSM has 81% of the market. UMTS (W-CDMA) enable hand-over back and forth UMTS and GSM. CDMA2000 can not do hand-over between GSM and CDMA2000. (See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W-CDMA): "The CDMA family of standards (including cdmaOne and CDMA2000) are not compatible with the W-CDMA family of standards that are based on ITU standards.")
Hence all networks that has GSM will transfer to UMTS since this decrases their initial investment as they transfer from 2/2.5G to 3G. Changing network standad is expensive, but the GSM/EDGE marketshare has been growing in US and will most likely continue to grow. At the same time CDMA is non-existant in europe.
The conclusion is simple - CDMA2000 is in the long run as dead as betamax.
law guy
Aug 5, 09:49 PM
I'd like to predict an unanticipated show stopper - a new Mac ultraportable that weighs something like 2.2 lbs and is around the thickness of a magazine. The new notebook would not be breaking new ground - there are intel PC notebooks that fit this / similar descriptions, for example the Q2010 offering by Fijitsu (illustrated in Q2010 pics that follow). http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/13/0,1425,sz=1&i=134331,00.jpg http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/Resources/35/2097637765.jpg But, new gound or not, it would be an exciting addition to the MacBook Pro line up. It would also be fun to have a product like that to catch everyone off guard.
I do have a bit of keynote fever. How do they do it? I'm not going to buy anything for a few years, and yet I can't wait to see what is unveiled. This time around, the fever pitch seems more acute than it's been since perhaps MWSF 2003 (when the Alu 12 and 17" PBs came out) - even more anticipation than then because of all of the new products expected. This is also the time when MR really shines - this is the core of the site: rumors about Macs - I love it.
I do have a bit of keynote fever. How do they do it? I'm not going to buy anything for a few years, and yet I can't wait to see what is unveiled. This time around, the fever pitch seems more acute than it's been since perhaps MWSF 2003 (when the Alu 12 and 17" PBs came out) - even more anticipation than then because of all of the new products expected. This is also the time when MR really shines - this is the core of the site: rumors about Macs - I love it.
7on
Sep 19, 08:21 AM
I purchased my 1.83GHz Mac Book with 1GHz of RAM on Sep 07, and apple sent me an email that it was going to be shipped on the 18th. Today I got this email from Apple "
Le Big Mac
Apr 27, 08:27 AM
And here I thought that data wasn't sent to Apple? At least they encrypted it so that you can't tell what actually is sent.
How much is it costing me to send the data to apple so they can crowdsource locations for everyone? I doubt AT&T isn't counting this towards data use.
How much is it costing me to send the data to apple so they can crowdsource locations for everyone? I doubt AT&T isn't counting this towards data use.
epitaphic
Aug 21, 01:21 PM
Owners of quad G5s have been up in arms about this, as it is being suggested this is a deliberate crippling to avoid admitting that the quad G5 is potentially faster for musicians
I think the deal is that when the G5 Quad came out, there was nothing to compare it to. Sure it was going to be faster than a dual but no app to this day can fully utilize it. With the release of the Mac Pro, all of a sudden there is another quad for comparison. With apple's traditional "we moved to a new machine and we'll go through hell to show you how it's much faster than what you've got" they're having to optimize the code to show it. Now why would you go and optimize the code for the old machine? All it'll do is show that the new one isn't that much faster for that particular app.
You know how there's politics in everything? There's also marketing in everything :)
I think the deal is that when the G5 Quad came out, there was nothing to compare it to. Sure it was going to be faster than a dual but no app to this day can fully utilize it. With the release of the Mac Pro, all of a sudden there is another quad for comparison. With apple's traditional "we moved to a new machine and we'll go through hell to show you how it's much faster than what you've got" they're having to optimize the code to show it. Now why would you go and optimize the code for the old machine? All it'll do is show that the new one isn't that much faster for that particular app.
You know how there's politics in everything? There's also marketing in everything :)
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий