digitalbiker
Aug 4, 09:09 PM
Who cares for Quicken - it's not performance critical. It probably wasn't worth the effort given the gains probaby wouldn't even be noticeable.
I'd think that all Apple's Pro apps market to the same small intel mac userbase, and they're done. They weren't cross platform so I'd think they weren't easy to port.
We all know Adobe's reasons - but still, two years is a long time.
First, Apple's apps were easier to port because they were already XCode. So it was fairly easy for Apple to just recompile with the new compiler.
Second, Adobe was using a lot of CodeWarrior code and it would be far more difficult to convert. Also having X86 code compiled using MS VStudio doesn't help Adobe to be ahead in generating X86 code under XCode because they run under a completely different GUI and access different libraries.
Third, even Apple released the UB code with a new updated version of their pro apps. Adobe's CS3 was not due for a year and a half.
Fourth, Adobe announced their plans early on so that everyone would know what to expect.
My point about intuit is that Apple announced the transition before Intuit even began work on Quicken 2007. Quicken hardly relies on any graphics code, is mostly text, and number based. Yet they chose to ignore converting to UB code even though now would be perfect timing to do so. In addition they have not announced any plans to create UB's in the future.
Sure quicken will run with Rosetta, but is that what we want from developers. Forget about modernizing their code because they can make it run in an artificial emulated environment.
With that logic Intuit should have stuck with OS9 versions of quicken as it could always be run fine in classic.
I'd think that all Apple's Pro apps market to the same small intel mac userbase, and they're done. They weren't cross platform so I'd think they weren't easy to port.
We all know Adobe's reasons - but still, two years is a long time.
First, Apple's apps were easier to port because they were already XCode. So it was fairly easy for Apple to just recompile with the new compiler.
Second, Adobe was using a lot of CodeWarrior code and it would be far more difficult to convert. Also having X86 code compiled using MS VStudio doesn't help Adobe to be ahead in generating X86 code under XCode because they run under a completely different GUI and access different libraries.
Third, even Apple released the UB code with a new updated version of their pro apps. Adobe's CS3 was not due for a year and a half.
Fourth, Adobe announced their plans early on so that everyone would know what to expect.
My point about intuit is that Apple announced the transition before Intuit even began work on Quicken 2007. Quicken hardly relies on any graphics code, is mostly text, and number based. Yet they chose to ignore converting to UB code even though now would be perfect timing to do so. In addition they have not announced any plans to create UB's in the future.
Sure quicken will run with Rosetta, but is that what we want from developers. Forget about modernizing their code because they can make it run in an artificial emulated environment.
With that logic Intuit should have stuck with OS9 versions of quicken as it could always be run fine in classic.
motulist
Apr 20, 01:26 AM
iPhone 4 with 3.5" screen: 115.2mm x 58.6mm x 9.3mm
weight: 137 grams
HTC Thunderbolt with 4" screen: 122mm x 66mm x 13mm
weight: 164 grams
I am not sure about you, but on composite that HTC with a 4" screen is noticeably larger in every possible way over the iPhone 4.
Um, just because HTC came out with a device that has those dimensions doesn't mean that those are the smallest dimensions possible for that screen size. Apparently you wren't looking at macrumors a couple of months ago when the rumors were being posted about the next iphone having an edge-to edge screen.
EDIT:
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/16/iphone-5-rumors-spawn-mockups/
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/26/iphone-5-part-shows-larger-screen-thinner-bezel/
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/10/iphone-5-design-images-with-larger-screen/
weight: 137 grams
HTC Thunderbolt with 4" screen: 122mm x 66mm x 13mm
weight: 164 grams
I am not sure about you, but on composite that HTC with a 4" screen is noticeably larger in every possible way over the iPhone 4.
Um, just because HTC came out with a device that has those dimensions doesn't mean that those are the smallest dimensions possible for that screen size. Apparently you wren't looking at macrumors a couple of months ago when the rumors were being posted about the next iphone having an edge-to edge screen.
EDIT:
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/16/iphone-5-rumors-spawn-mockups/
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/26/iphone-5-part-shows-larger-screen-thinner-bezel/
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/10/iphone-5-design-images-with-larger-screen/
noservice2001
Aug 4, 04:52 AM
please let it be in the mac mini...
twoodcc
Aug 4, 03:54 PM
Not to be rude, but are you really dumb enough to ask this? Ok, I'll try to make this as simple as possible: if I used a fully 64-bit OS & fully 64-bit software, that is software optimized for 64-bit processors, on a fully 64-bit processor, what would the advantage of using that set-up over using a 32-bit OS & 32-bit software on a 32-bit processor?
yeah i'd say that's rude. maybe i misunderstood you, but you never said this. (or if you did, i missed it).
i do not know the technical stuff, but i do know that if you had all 64-bit stuff, then it'd be a lot better than all 32-bit stuff. (i know i should use better termanology, but oh well)
yeah i'd say that's rude. maybe i misunderstood you, but you never said this. (or if you did, i missed it).
i do not know the technical stuff, but i do know that if you had all 64-bit stuff, then it'd be a lot better than all 32-bit stuff. (i know i should use better termanology, but oh well)
Multimedia
Aug 7, 04:23 PM
Not really significantly faster than the G5 Quad. Maybe 50% faster at best. As owner of a Quad G5 my motivation would be more about the 6 bays and the FW 800 and extra USB 2 port on the front than the speed. :) Not worth the extra money to go 3GHz - 33% more money for 12% more speed doesn't make economic sense. Need 8 cores inside.
darrens
Aug 4, 08:28 AM
Apple could go a long way by keeping their inventory short and getting customers the latest technology quickly.
I think I remeber reading that exact point in an interview with an Intel exec - they like the way Apple can bring a product to market quickly, and use innovative technologies in their chips before anyone else.
I think I remeber reading that exact point in an interview with an Intel exec - they like the way Apple can bring a product to market quickly, and use innovative technologies in their chips before anyone else.
puckhead193
Apr 20, 10:47 AM
I thought that would be the upgrade this year... nothing special like the 3gs update.
If I can't run iOS 5 then maybe but i'm sure I could run it on my iphone 4
If I can't run iOS 5 then maybe but i'm sure I could run it on my iphone 4
Erasmus
Aug 4, 07:11 PM
Centrino is the name of Intel's mobile platform - the chipset, wireless capabilities and a mobile processor - originally the Pentium M, but now its replacement, the Core Solo/Duo.
The budget name is Celeron.
Ugh! Damn names that all sound the same...
How am I supposed to remember that?
Well, anyway, I find it annoying. It's called Core Duo, and companies should not change the name on a whim.
Another thing I find annoying is that places like Domayne, Harvey Norman, Dick Smiths, etc, never mention what graphics card is in their computer. Granted, they all no doubt have integrated GPUs, but I would think the graphics card is pretty much the second most expensive computer component. Don't some high end graphics cards price upwards of a grand? that's more than these damn computers cost!
No doubt the world keeps saying Macs are too expensive. A Mac is advertised in a magazine, but they never mention they have graphics cards in them worth many hundreds of dollars, and are instead compared to integrated graphics systems, which come out looking better (more RAM, bigger screen, bigger HDD, etc.)
At least Macs seem to win out in Graphics and CPU speed.
End of Grump.
The budget name is Celeron.
Ugh! Damn names that all sound the same...
How am I supposed to remember that?
Well, anyway, I find it annoying. It's called Core Duo, and companies should not change the name on a whim.
Another thing I find annoying is that places like Domayne, Harvey Norman, Dick Smiths, etc, never mention what graphics card is in their computer. Granted, they all no doubt have integrated GPUs, but I would think the graphics card is pretty much the second most expensive computer component. Don't some high end graphics cards price upwards of a grand? that's more than these damn computers cost!
No doubt the world keeps saying Macs are too expensive. A Mac is advertised in a magazine, but they never mention they have graphics cards in them worth many hundreds of dollars, and are instead compared to integrated graphics systems, which come out looking better (more RAM, bigger screen, bigger HDD, etc.)
At least Macs seem to win out in Graphics and CPU speed.
End of Grump.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 10, 08:53 AM
I inputed it exactly like this in my calculator and I got 2. So...
Edit: I voted 2 because I thought of it as 48 over (/) 2(9+3)
But written as 48�2(9+3) I would say 288...
Strange.
You didn't enter it properly then...
Here
280594
The thing about this question is, whats the point of the parentheses..
Try using a calculator that uses the "/" instead of the divided by sign. You'll get 288. I tried it the way you did it on an old calculator and I got 2. But that's not the way it is in the OP. It's 48/2(9+3)
LOL um... ok? It's a calculator...
For the last time, a simple google search will show you guys that unless the calculator is in scientific mode, it will give you the wrong answer. Hard to believe, I guess, that a machine could be wrong, but it's true.
Edit: I voted 2 because I thought of it as 48 over (/) 2(9+3)
But written as 48�2(9+3) I would say 288...
Strange.
You didn't enter it properly then...
Here
280594
The thing about this question is, whats the point of the parentheses..
Try using a calculator that uses the "/" instead of the divided by sign. You'll get 288. I tried it the way you did it on an old calculator and I got 2. But that's not the way it is in the OP. It's 48/2(9+3)
LOL um... ok? It's a calculator...
For the last time, a simple google search will show you guys that unless the calculator is in scientific mode, it will give you the wrong answer. Hard to believe, I guess, that a machine could be wrong, but it's true.
ChickenSwartz
Aug 2, 06:28 PM
I do not expect MacBook Pros because Intel Core 2 Duo for notebooks has not been announced yet.
It was introduced last Thursday along with the Core 2 Duo for desktop (Merom, Conroe, and Woodcrest).
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060727103453.shtml
I believe someone quote an Intel official saying consumors should see Core 2 Duo Mobile computers by late August.
My [selfish?] logic:
Aug 7 + shipping in two weeks = late August
It was introduced last Thursday along with the Core 2 Duo for desktop (Merom, Conroe, and Woodcrest).
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060727103453.shtml
I believe someone quote an Intel official saying consumors should see Core 2 Duo Mobile computers by late August.
My [selfish?] logic:
Aug 7 + shipping in two weeks = late August
thisisahughes
Mar 28, 11:29 AM
The only behavior that seems to be awarded is: give Apple money is soon as you can and don't ask any questions.
that's what I do.
that's what I do.
alvindarkness
Apr 10, 12:22 PM
I must say i just found this sight through google and had to join because of this post. I am a math teacher and the correct answer is 2
48/2(9+3) is a different equation than 48/2 * (9+3)
using Pemdas or the correct order of operations in the first problem
we first add whats in the parentheses (9+3)= 12
second step we multiply 2(12) =24
final step 48/24 = 2
the people who are getting 288
are adding (9+3) =12
then they are skipping an order of operations and going straight to division 48/2 =24
24 * 12 = 288
Multiplication doesn't have precedence over division in the order of operations. 1�2�3(1+2)�5*6�7*9 would have the parenthesis done first.. then the rest done left to right. So the next step is 1�2�3*3�5*6�7*9
Wolfram alpha visualises both of those as the same. i.e.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1�2�3%281%2B2%29�5*6�7*9
and
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1�2�3*3�5*6�7*9
I agree that the translation of the equation into ascii can cause cause some vagueness, or at least second guessing the intent of the author (was he short handing "all over" with "/" for example). But we have to work with what we have, and I definitely see it as a 288.
48/2(9+3) is a different equation than 48/2 * (9+3)
using Pemdas or the correct order of operations in the first problem
we first add whats in the parentheses (9+3)= 12
second step we multiply 2(12) =24
final step 48/24 = 2
the people who are getting 288
are adding (9+3) =12
then they are skipping an order of operations and going straight to division 48/2 =24
24 * 12 = 288
Multiplication doesn't have precedence over division in the order of operations. 1�2�3(1+2)�5*6�7*9 would have the parenthesis done first.. then the rest done left to right. So the next step is 1�2�3*3�5*6�7*9
Wolfram alpha visualises both of those as the same. i.e.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1�2�3%281%2B2%29�5*6�7*9
and
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1�2�3*3�5*6�7*9
I agree that the translation of the equation into ascii can cause cause some vagueness, or at least second guessing the intent of the author (was he short handing "all over" with "/" for example). But we have to work with what we have, and I definitely see it as a 288.
jpcanaverde
Apr 5, 02:45 PM
Maybe now Apple realizes that they must allow some things on their devices like themes. Or not...
mfacey
Jul 30, 01:45 AM
What's with everybody thinking this will be too US centric? I'm guessing a possible music download service will be USA only at first, but in all honesty the European and Asian cell phone markets are about 3 years ahead of the US as far as technology goes. Chances are, Apple will make it a GSM technology phone, which is actually quite international!
Even so, the USA is in dire need of a decent cell phone. The fact that the Razr is so popular says it all. The Razr is a terrible phone (along with most other Motorolas for that matter). And the rest of the selection available is pretty sad too!
Personally I'm hoping for a smart phone of some sort, preferably with a full qwerty keyboard. But I'm not holding my breath.
Even so, the USA is in dire need of a decent cell phone. The fact that the Razr is so popular says it all. The Razr is a terrible phone (along with most other Motorolas for that matter). And the rest of the selection available is pretty sad too!
Personally I'm hoping for a smart phone of some sort, preferably with a full qwerty keyboard. But I'm not holding my breath.
Applespider
Sep 11, 03:36 AM
this event is going to be simulcast in LONDON. Does this mean that movies will be able to be purchased by folks in the UK???
Nope, it's just that Apple Europe have big offices in London and it's easier to get the Euro journalists to fly to London to cover an Apple event than fly em to California - and more effective than just sending the press release.
The last few Jobsnotes/events have been shown in London to a select audience (although used to be out at the BBC) but it's no guarantee that we'll get the services that are being pushed.
Nope, it's just that Apple Europe have big offices in London and it's easier to get the Euro journalists to fly to London to cover an Apple event than fly em to California - and more effective than just sending the press release.
The last few Jobsnotes/events have been shown in London to a select audience (although used to be out at the BBC) but it's no guarantee that we'll get the services that are being pushed.
dethmaShine
May 4, 03:17 PM
I'm the one that raised the point in the first place! I think I set the context!
Exactly. You did set the context but you did fall out your words when you said that MAS download would be a better thing to exploit which in any case, not true.
Just like 'small white car' corrected you, there's nothing worse than an unrestricted Mac OS Install Disk. Simple.
I do. I don't have any need to violate it. I only have one Mac.
All of my computers have a fully licenced copy of Windows XP or 7 on them.
It's great. Good that you don't. Just saying that EULA doesn't hold a candle in practicality and can be easily exploited. I can illegally install the OS on a laptop in front of Apple and they cannot do anything. Not that they care, but even if they did, they couldn't.
Exactly. You did set the context but you did fall out your words when you said that MAS download would be a better thing to exploit which in any case, not true.
Just like 'small white car' corrected you, there's nothing worse than an unrestricted Mac OS Install Disk. Simple.
I do. I don't have any need to violate it. I only have one Mac.
All of my computers have a fully licenced copy of Windows XP or 7 on them.
It's great. Good that you don't. Just saying that EULA doesn't hold a candle in practicality and can be easily exploited. I can illegally install the OS on a laptop in front of Apple and they cannot do anything. Not that they care, but even if they did, they couldn't.
marcosscriven
May 6, 02:37 AM
Moving to a different architecture doesn't mean the death of Mac OS - all they need to do is compile it to the new target. Obviously not *quite* that simple, but ARM Mac != iOS Mac
What I'm interested in though is how well any proposed ARM chip could emulate the Core i3/5/7s of today?
If a future MacBook had an 8-core 64-bit ARM chip in that was twice as fast as Intel's offerings, and used half the power (say), but was the same price, the only thing that would stop me buying is if x86 emulation was poor.
Basically, I don't care what processor is used, if older programs can be run *reasonably* well, for a year or so, before they are compiled for the new arch, or superseded by others. I'd be prepared to take a 20 - 30% hit on x86 apps in any interim changeover period.
What I'm interested in though is how well any proposed ARM chip could emulate the Core i3/5/7s of today?
If a future MacBook had an 8-core 64-bit ARM chip in that was twice as fast as Intel's offerings, and used half the power (say), but was the same price, the only thing that would stop me buying is if x86 emulation was poor.
Basically, I don't care what processor is used, if older programs can be run *reasonably* well, for a year or so, before they are compiled for the new arch, or superseded by others. I'd be prepared to take a 20 - 30% hit on x86 apps in any interim changeover period.
nanofrog
Apr 28, 03:54 PM
I'm not exactly sure why Apple put those "vents" in the plate, they sure don't go through the whole panel, though. The compartment to the top is indeed closed apart from a few tiny holes.
There's not a lot of venting on the back (nor ability to install a fan in push mode), so it's likely as a means of moving additional heat out of the PCIe zone, and pull it out through the PSU (not as hot when mixed with cool air drawn in around from the front of the case past the ODD's, so it shouldn't be hot enough to cause damage to the PSU).
Just a thought anyway... ;)
There's not a lot of venting on the back (nor ability to install a fan in push mode), so it's likely as a means of moving additional heat out of the PCIe zone, and pull it out through the PSU (not as hot when mixed with cool air drawn in around from the front of the case past the ODD's, so it shouldn't be hot enough to cause damage to the PSU).
Just a thought anyway... ;)
firestarter
Apr 21, 09:24 PM
CIA...
That setup screams 'old, slow legacy stuff'.
Why should a new iteration of the MacPro be a hostage to someone wanting a housing for 6 of their old, slow and small drives?
Why support 3 or 4 eSATA and Firewire expansion PCIe cards when that can all be done over a single Thunderbolt cable?
Sounds like your setup needs a bit of a spring clean. A newer, smaller box would force you to consolidate onto a smaller number of bigger and faster drives (those 150GB raptors are slow by today's standards).
That setup screams 'old, slow legacy stuff'.
Why should a new iteration of the MacPro be a hostage to someone wanting a housing for 6 of their old, slow and small drives?
Why support 3 or 4 eSATA and Firewire expansion PCIe cards when that can all be done over a single Thunderbolt cable?
Sounds like your setup needs a bit of a spring clean. A newer, smaller box would force you to consolidate onto a smaller number of bigger and faster drives (those 150GB raptors are slow by today's standards).
itcheroni
Apr 16, 01:15 PM
but if nobody spends to buy that small business's product, how will it survive? Yes you need some saving, but spending is equally important. What we should have done was saved while the economy was going good and we could afford to have that money sitting on the sides and now that the economy is bad we should be spending to restart it. Of course the Republicans were irresponsible with their spending under Bush so now we don't have that money we should have saved to fall back on.
Nobody will spend? I find that hard to believe. We have about 300 million people in this country. And 6 billion in the world.
There is always demand. Demand is infinite. It is whether the price is at the right point for the individual. Even when we know a product will continual to decrease in price, there's a point at which we'll buy it. We've all waited to buy an ipod but we don't wait forever, even though we know the current model will be $50-100 less in September.
The idea that the majority of people will not spend anything for a protracted amount of time is ludicrous and only in the minds of clueless mainstream economists. Economists are a bit like creation scientists. They both approach the world seeking to validate their own beliefs. Both can continue to believe in their own beliefs because they never have to experiment. The economist doesn't understand how to make money and the creation scientist doesn't use the scientific method. Investors/traders and real scientists, on the other hand, are merely trying to understand the workings of something they can't change.
Nobody will spend? I find that hard to believe. We have about 300 million people in this country. And 6 billion in the world.
There is always demand. Demand is infinite. It is whether the price is at the right point for the individual. Even when we know a product will continual to decrease in price, there's a point at which we'll buy it. We've all waited to buy an ipod but we don't wait forever, even though we know the current model will be $50-100 less in September.
The idea that the majority of people will not spend anything for a protracted amount of time is ludicrous and only in the minds of clueless mainstream economists. Economists are a bit like creation scientists. They both approach the world seeking to validate their own beliefs. Both can continue to believe in their own beliefs because they never have to experiment. The economist doesn't understand how to make money and the creation scientist doesn't use the scientific method. Investors/traders and real scientists, on the other hand, are merely trying to understand the workings of something they can't change.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 10, 02:54 AM
Here
280594
The thing about this question is, whats the point of the parentheses..
sorry but business calculator is not a scientific one and thus not valid for this argument.
280594
The thing about this question is, whats the point of the parentheses..
sorry but business calculator is not a scientific one and thus not valid for this argument.
shawnce
Aug 4, 02:32 PM
3. The 17" MBP is as thin as 15.4". Why does it have faster D/L SD ?? ..but it is much wider which allows for more space for the drive since the trackpad (IIRC) doesn't overlap it. It really is an issue of vertical space that limits the 15" MBP to the drive it currently has.
Thunderhawks
Apr 24, 09:13 PM
Given this. If these "typical consumers, who don't care or really know about specs" are today, looking at their current 1920x1080 screens, or 1920x1200 screens, and they cannot see the individual pixels from their normal, let's say two feet away viewing distance, then what on earth would be the point in increasing costs, and slowing down an iMac by lumbering it with a higher resolution screen?
What is the point, for these consumers, to increase the screen resolution when they can't make out the individual pixels currently?
This is for a development in the future and the cost may not go up.
Apple usually outwaits developments until the cost fall into their range.
BTW: I do find it funny that you want to fault Apple for "gaming" a field that they clearly did not want to be in.
BTW2: The iMac for the masses is a clever space saving design. Their sales success shows it!
The Pro type tower boxes with separate monitor are just big clunky boxes.
They take up desk space or are usually hidden under the desk.
Also, in any good design Form follows Function. Apple follows that principle well and then some.
The secret of excellent design is actually what is not there:-)
What is the point, for these consumers, to increase the screen resolution when they can't make out the individual pixels currently?
This is for a development in the future and the cost may not go up.
Apple usually outwaits developments until the cost fall into their range.
BTW: I do find it funny that you want to fault Apple for "gaming" a field that they clearly did not want to be in.
BTW2: The iMac for the masses is a clever space saving design. Their sales success shows it!
The Pro type tower boxes with separate monitor are just big clunky boxes.
They take up desk space or are usually hidden under the desk.
Also, in any good design Form follows Function. Apple follows that principle well and then some.
The secret of excellent design is actually what is not there:-)
ihaveNFC
May 7, 11:26 PM
No kidding. I wouldn't mind paying the fee every year if they'd just make MobileMe web-mail work worth a damn. SO slow...freezes up constantly. It's pretty much an every day thing, I have to refresh my browser or just close it completely and log back in, because a page I click on simply won't load.
Amen
Amen