guzhogi
Jul 14, 03:37 PM
I have Mirror Door. How can I burn DVD (top) and CD (bottom) at once via Toast? I have tried and nothing worked, Toast only focus 1 thing at a time. Or am I wrong? :confused:
Make a copy of Toast and use one copy for one drive and the other copy for the other drive.
Make a copy of Toast and use one copy for one drive and the other copy for the other drive.
%2520Atlanta%25201.jpg "azaleas grow from Florida")
twoodcc
Nov 30, 05:20 PM
so far i like this game. i haven't had time to play it alot, but i'm a level 6 right now, and i'm about 9% game complete.
dmkidd
Mar 26, 12:05 AM
Yes come on summer! Daddy is waiting!!
Unspeaked
Sep 19, 11:24 AM
I ordered my 15" MBP yesterday and they are telling me it will ship next Tuesday. I sure hope that when the package arrives the MBP will have no stinking Merom, no more than 512 MB RAM, no better than an 80 Gb/5400 rpm HDD, and -- please God -- no magnetic latch! Oh - and one more thing: Apple better not send me a refund if they lower the price before the package hits my doorstep. :mad:
I don't think you've got anything to worry about there...
I don't think you've got anything to worry about there...
aafuss1
Aug 6, 05:48 PM
What about TV Show downloads in the UK? Pleeeeaaaase!!! :rolleyes:
Looking foward to these Mac Pros though, my Dad is definatley going to buy one. :D
Thanks, Joe.
That would be good-if BBC signs up. Aussie's already have TV shows (for $1.99)-but on the Nine Network's nineMSN (http://ninemsn.com.au)site.
Keeping track of WWDC time-use the Extra-Clocks. Not as accurate as a internet updating clock, but does the job for me.
iPod shuffle-not being updated (because of the nano),but at least Apple gave those owners a volume limit.
Looking foward to these Mac Pros though, my Dad is definatley going to buy one. :D
Thanks, Joe.
That would be good-if BBC signs up. Aussie's already have TV shows (for $1.99)-but on the Nine Network's nineMSN (http://ninemsn.com.au)site.
Keeping track of WWDC time-use the Extra-Clocks. Not as accurate as a internet updating clock, but does the job for me.
iPod shuffle-not being updated (because of the nano),but at least Apple gave those owners a volume limit.
marksman
Mar 31, 04:37 PM
no, the question is: "Is this evil?" when google starts rejecting Facebook Android phones, or android versions using Bing and not Google...
thats the question.
I don't think it is evil. It is crazy for people to pretend like Google makes Android to be benevolent and help the world. They have financial motives, and they have to protect their interests. Removing Google as search is probably going to be a huge no-no. It is kind of dumb that anyone has even tried to do that... That is part of the problem. Some of the carriers/manufacturers are stupid.
They have disrespected what Google has done for them and forced Google to clamp down. When someone gives you something for free and does a lot of work for you, you can at least respect their position and understand when you do things that might be stepping on their toes.
That is the real problem with the android commodity market though. It is not google, it is all the second rate manufacturers who sucked at making smartphones before Apple and Google, and continue to do dumb things to this day.
You mix a more general usage based OS with a hardware marketplace filled with knuckleheads, and you end up with the mess that is the Android hardware market and ecosystem.
thats the question.
I don't think it is evil. It is crazy for people to pretend like Google makes Android to be benevolent and help the world. They have financial motives, and they have to protect their interests. Removing Google as search is probably going to be a huge no-no. It is kind of dumb that anyone has even tried to do that... That is part of the problem. Some of the carriers/manufacturers are stupid.
They have disrespected what Google has done for them and forced Google to clamp down. When someone gives you something for free and does a lot of work for you, you can at least respect their position and understand when you do things that might be stepping on their toes.
That is the real problem with the android commodity market though. It is not google, it is all the second rate manufacturers who sucked at making smartphones before Apple and Google, and continue to do dumb things to this day.
You mix a more general usage based OS with a hardware marketplace filled with knuckleheads, and you end up with the mess that is the Android hardware market and ecosystem.
GQB
Mar 31, 05:07 PM
This is a smart move. It had to happen sooner or later.
John Gruber would ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Wow... classless AND wrong at the same time. Care to go for the hat trick and throw in 'fanboi' too?
John Gruber would ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Wow... classless AND wrong at the same time. Care to go for the hat trick and throw in 'fanboi' too?
NY Guitarist
Apr 5, 08:14 PM
Interestingly this contradicts the information my friend on the design team hinted towards. I know the release is imminent so time will tell.
So are you saying that the apps will be broken up and sold individually?
So are you saying that the apps will be broken up and sold individually?
Mr. Retrofire
Apr 6, 10:24 PM
And you obvioulsy don't understand what a GPGPU API is for. What good is running code through an API whose purpose is to offload your CPU by using ... your CPU.
See, that is exactly not the purpose of OpenCL. OpenCL can also use specialized DSPs, if someone writes a compiler for them. OpenCL is GPU-independent, which is a problem, if you want to optimize your OpenCL-code for a specific GPU.
If you really need the power of a GPU you could use CUDA and/or STREAM (the standards in the past 4 years). Most computer science labs use CUDA. No one needs OpenCL at the moment, because the solutions which work are based on CUDA and/or STREAM, not OpenCL.
This will change a bit in the next ten years, but the hardware-dependent languages CUDA/STREAM will never be replaced by OpenCL, at least not for high performance applications, which require direct GPU-access.
OpenCL is like C, you can use on CPUs, GPUs and DSPs.
See, that is exactly not the purpose of OpenCL. OpenCL can also use specialized DSPs, if someone writes a compiler for them. OpenCL is GPU-independent, which is a problem, if you want to optimize your OpenCL-code for a specific GPU.
If you really need the power of a GPU you could use CUDA and/or STREAM (the standards in the past 4 years). Most computer science labs use CUDA. No one needs OpenCL at the moment, because the solutions which work are based on CUDA and/or STREAM, not OpenCL.
This will change a bit in the next ten years, but the hardware-dependent languages CUDA/STREAM will never be replaced by OpenCL, at least not for high performance applications, which require direct GPU-access.
OpenCL is like C, you can use on CPUs, GPUs and DSPs.
gnasher729
Jul 20, 01:26 PM
But as some already pointed out, many applications can't use multiple cores, therefore you won't get any performance improvements with multi cores.
True, but many applications are fast enough on a single core, and applications that are not fast enough _will_ be modified when multiple processors are common.
True, but many applications are fast enough on a single core, and applications that are not fast enough _will_ be modified when multiple processors are common.
spydr
Mar 31, 10:05 PM
Google is really trying hard to anything but their big motto. :eek:
Orange-DE
Jul 21, 07:10 AM
Will it be possible to plug-in any PC graphics cards into an Intel Mac Pro?
Since Apple uses Intel�s chipsets and bords, including PCI-bound hardware devices such as ethernet and sound, controllers and so on - i don�t belive that intel changed the specifications of f.e. an 945i-chipset just for burning in firmwares instead of BIOSes!?!
Apple - bring the iHome and make us happy :)
Since Apple uses Intel�s chipsets and bords, including PCI-bound hardware devices such as ethernet and sound, controllers and so on - i don�t belive that intel changed the specifications of f.e. an 945i-chipset just for burning in firmwares instead of BIOSes!?!
Apple - bring the iHome and make us happy :)
Popeye206
Apr 19, 02:06 PM
lawsuit aside, that's up to the courts, not all the couch lawyers here....
I was wondering if maybe the sales numbers for the iPad are just iPad 1.0 sales and not including iPad 2?
I guess we'll know tomorrow.
I was wondering if maybe the sales numbers for the iPad are just iPad 1.0 sales and not including iPad 2?
I guess we'll know tomorrow.
nostaws
Apr 10, 12:59 AM
Hey. But there is something to be said for familiarity. We all know how to use it. But I agree an update would be nice.
Hoping for some better multi-core support(although probably going to have to wait for Lion for the newer QuickTime engine) and a UI that isn't from the 90's:
http://www.candlerblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/03_ambit_fullscreen-300x232.jpg
^ Final Cut on Mac OS 9
Final Cut on Tiger/Leopard/Snow Leopard:
http://adobe-discount.com/product_images/o/apple_final_cut_express_hd_4__90390.jpg
Only thing that's changed is the scroll bars.
Hoping for some better multi-core support(although probably going to have to wait for Lion for the newer QuickTime engine) and a UI that isn't from the 90's:
http://www.candlerblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/03_ambit_fullscreen-300x232.jpg
^ Final Cut on Mac OS 9
Final Cut on Tiger/Leopard/Snow Leopard:
http://adobe-discount.com/product_images/o/apple_final_cut_express_hd_4__90390.jpg
Only thing that's changed is the scroll bars.
littleman23408
Dec 4, 04:59 PM
A-spec level 19. Haven't played it for a week now, maybe I should play this weekend and get it to 25.
I think I got mine up to 16 or 17 last night. Finished the second license with all gold, started a bspec driver, and did some other things.
yep im pretty sure thats what i saw! pretty cool this game
my PSN name is psychofetus
Awesome, I sent you a friend request. Edit: I received your friend request.
I think I got mine up to 16 or 17 last night. Finished the second license with all gold, started a bspec driver, and did some other things.
yep im pretty sure thats what i saw! pretty cool this game
my PSN name is psychofetus
Awesome, I sent you a friend request. Edit: I received your friend request.
macgeek2005
Aug 19, 09:43 PM
While it is true I have no life, it is not true I have fully decided to skip buying a Mac Pro. These discussions have lead me to a place of indecision about it rather than what I previously thought, which was to skip it. I never intended to talk anyone out of buying one if they want one. And I never intended to talk bad dirt against it. My apologies to anyone who thought I did. :(
My heartly congratulations to all who have taken the Mac Pro plunge already.
I am also waiting to see what the full scope of Core 2 offerings will be as I want a 17" Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro more first.
As far as the comment that Toast and Handbrake can use all four cores goes, Toast definitely does in the Mac Pro and if you add a significant action to the Quad G5, it will negatively impact the 2-3 core performance of Handbrake as well as Toast. That is what I meant. If it wasn't clear before now, I apologize for the imcomplete explanation of my meaning.
I feel misunderstood by some of you. No harm intended. Not anti-Mac Pro at all. Not trying to ratinoalize Quad G5 as somehow better - no way. Not trying to negatively impact Mac Pro sales. I'm totally Pro Mac Pro. Regret the misunderstanding. Wish I hadn't hurt some people's feelings. :o
That's okay. No worries. I just get a little defensive when I spend $5000 on a new system, and then see you posting about how it'll be better with Clovertown. But that's my problem I guess. :rolleyes:
Anyway, it's all cool.
My heartly congratulations to all who have taken the Mac Pro plunge already.
I am also waiting to see what the full scope of Core 2 offerings will be as I want a 17" Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro more first.
As far as the comment that Toast and Handbrake can use all four cores goes, Toast definitely does in the Mac Pro and if you add a significant action to the Quad G5, it will negatively impact the 2-3 core performance of Handbrake as well as Toast. That is what I meant. If it wasn't clear before now, I apologize for the imcomplete explanation of my meaning.
I feel misunderstood by some of you. No harm intended. Not anti-Mac Pro at all. Not trying to ratinoalize Quad G5 as somehow better - no way. Not trying to negatively impact Mac Pro sales. I'm totally Pro Mac Pro. Regret the misunderstanding. Wish I hadn't hurt some people's feelings. :o
That's okay. No worries. I just get a little defensive when I spend $5000 on a new system, and then see you posting about how it'll be better with Clovertown. But that's my problem I guess. :rolleyes:
Anyway, it's all cool.
drsmithy
Sep 13, 08:41 PM
Mac OS X distributes threads and processes across cores/CPUs to optimize performance already. (Subject to some limitations, as noted already.)
[...]
(Note: I keep specifying 'Mac' here. There is a reason. Windows isn't as good at multithreading/processing yet...)
Uh, no. Windows NT is better at multithreading - and particularly multiprocessor scheduling - largely because it's been doing it for a lot longer and on a lot more powerful hardware. NT was running on quad-processor machines a decade ago.
Prior to 10.4, OS X had roughly the same level of SMP support Windows NT had back around the 1993 - 95 timeframe, with Windows NT 3.x.
The improvements in 10.4 start to put it in the ballpark of NT 4.0, ca. 1996.
10.5 will probably put it on par with Windows 2000, maybe XP.
[...]
(Note: I keep specifying 'Mac' here. There is a reason. Windows isn't as good at multithreading/processing yet...)
Uh, no. Windows NT is better at multithreading - and particularly multiprocessor scheduling - largely because it's been doing it for a lot longer and on a lot more powerful hardware. NT was running on quad-processor machines a decade ago.
Prior to 10.4, OS X had roughly the same level of SMP support Windows NT had back around the 1993 - 95 timeframe, with Windows NT 3.x.
The improvements in 10.4 start to put it in the ballpark of NT 4.0, ca. 1996.
10.5 will probably put it on par with Windows 2000, maybe XP.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 1, 04:17 AM
Your ignorance is staggering.
That's strange. I've never seen my ignorance stagger. I've always thought it couldn't walk. ;)
Seriously, please educate me, neko girl.
That's strange. I've never seen my ignorance stagger. I've always thought it couldn't walk. ;)
Seriously, please educate me, neko girl.
ZildjianKX
Aug 7, 03:51 PM
YOU MUST BE KIDDING. Have you actually used System Restore to restore a single file? Oh that's right, you can't. All you can do it reset your system back to a point where the file existed.
This is MUCH more powerful, and more like something users would actually want.
System Restore is great for those times when you want to apply a system patch that could be iffy, and you are willing to "snap" a restore point, apply the patch, and roll back if something didn't fly.
But for the normal user, it is much more useless.
I'd also like to point out I've never actually gotten XP's system restore to work, I've tried about 10 times over the past 5 years. Maybe I'm the exception, but you really can't rely on it.
This is MUCH more powerful, and more like something users would actually want.
System Restore is great for those times when you want to apply a system patch that could be iffy, and you are willing to "snap" a restore point, apply the patch, and roll back if something didn't fly.
But for the normal user, it is much more useless.
I'd also like to point out I've never actually gotten XP's system restore to work, I've tried about 10 times over the past 5 years. Maybe I'm the exception, but you really can't rely on it.
SuperCachetes
Mar 5, 07:30 PM
The same model applies to the 'church'.
They are on the wane, and need new conscripts.
Gays are less likely to give them that.
That's (sadly) believable. See, now you're talking. I knew you didn't always pop round just to throw a cheeky non sequitur into the works. ;)
They are on the wane, and need new conscripts.
Gays are less likely to give them that.
That's (sadly) believable. See, now you're talking. I knew you didn't always pop round just to throw a cheeky non sequitur into the works. ;)
CellarDoor
Aug 8, 06:29 AM
In nine months or less......... we'll have those
Top Secret features in our machines - too bad
for Redmond they won't be revealed until then.
Core graphics and Quartz Extreme will be amazing.
Love Time Machine, Spaces, etc.
Is this a poem? Lovely.
Top Secret features in our machines - too bad
for Redmond they won't be revealed until then.
Core graphics and Quartz Extreme will be amazing.
Love Time Machine, Spaces, etc.
Is this a poem? Lovely.
theBB
Aug 11, 07:28 PM
Confused.
Can somebody explain me the differences between the cellphone market between the US and Europe.
Will a 'iPhone' just be marketed to the US or worldwide (as the iPod does)?
Well, let's see, about 20 years ago, a lot of countries in Europe, Asia and elsewhere decided on a standard digital cell phone system and called it GSM. About 15 years ago GSM networks became quite widespread across these countries. In the meantime US kept on using analog cell phones. Motorola did not even believe that digital cell phone had much of a future, so it decided to stay away from this market, a decision which almost bankrupted the company.
US started rolling out digital service only about 10 years ago. As US government does not like to dictate private companies how to conduct their business, they sold the spectrum and put down some basic ground rules, but for the most part they let the service providers use any network they wished. For one reason or another, these providers decided go with about 4 different standards at first. Quite a few companies went with GSM, AT&T picked a similar, but incompatible TDMA (IS=136?) standard, Nextel went with a proprietary standard they called iDEN and Sprint and Verizon went with CDMA, a radically different standard (IS-95) designed by Qualcomm. At the time, other big companies were very skeptical, so Qualcomm had to not only develop the underlying communication standards, but manufacture cell phones and the electronics for the cell towers. However, once the system proved itself, everybody started moving in that direction. Even the upcoming 3G system for these GSM networks, called UMTS, use a variant of CDMA technology.
CDMA is a more complicated standard compared to GSM, but it allows the providers to cram more users into each cell, it is supposedly cheaper to maintain and more flexible in some respects. However, anybody in that boat has to pay hefty royalties to Qualcomm, dampening its popularity. While creating UMTS, GSM standards bodies did everything they could to avoid using Qualcomm patents to avoid these payments. However, I don't know how successful they got in these efforts.
Even though Europeans here on these forums like to gloat that US did not join the worldwide standard, that we did not play along, that ours is a hodge podge of incompatible systems; without the freedom to try out different standards, CDMA would not have the opportunity to prove its feasibility and performance. In the end, the rest of the world is also reaping the benefits through UMTS/WCDMA.
Of course, not using the same standards as everybody else has its own price. The components of CDMA cell phones cost more and the system itself is more complicated, so CDMA versions of cell phones hit the market six months to a year after their GSM counterparts, if at all. The infrastructure cost of a rare system is higher as well, so AT&T had to rip apart its network to replace it with GSM version about five years after rolling it out. Sprint is probably going to convert Nextel's system in the near future as well.
I hope this answers your question.
Can somebody explain me the differences between the cellphone market between the US and Europe.
Will a 'iPhone' just be marketed to the US or worldwide (as the iPod does)?
Well, let's see, about 20 years ago, a lot of countries in Europe, Asia and elsewhere decided on a standard digital cell phone system and called it GSM. About 15 years ago GSM networks became quite widespread across these countries. In the meantime US kept on using analog cell phones. Motorola did not even believe that digital cell phone had much of a future, so it decided to stay away from this market, a decision which almost bankrupted the company.
US started rolling out digital service only about 10 years ago. As US government does not like to dictate private companies how to conduct their business, they sold the spectrum and put down some basic ground rules, but for the most part they let the service providers use any network they wished. For one reason or another, these providers decided go with about 4 different standards at first. Quite a few companies went with GSM, AT&T picked a similar, but incompatible TDMA (IS=136?) standard, Nextel went with a proprietary standard they called iDEN and Sprint and Verizon went with CDMA, a radically different standard (IS-95) designed by Qualcomm. At the time, other big companies were very skeptical, so Qualcomm had to not only develop the underlying communication standards, but manufacture cell phones and the electronics for the cell towers. However, once the system proved itself, everybody started moving in that direction. Even the upcoming 3G system for these GSM networks, called UMTS, use a variant of CDMA technology.
CDMA is a more complicated standard compared to GSM, but it allows the providers to cram more users into each cell, it is supposedly cheaper to maintain and more flexible in some respects. However, anybody in that boat has to pay hefty royalties to Qualcomm, dampening its popularity. While creating UMTS, GSM standards bodies did everything they could to avoid using Qualcomm patents to avoid these payments. However, I don't know how successful they got in these efforts.
Even though Europeans here on these forums like to gloat that US did not join the worldwide standard, that we did not play along, that ours is a hodge podge of incompatible systems; without the freedom to try out different standards, CDMA would not have the opportunity to prove its feasibility and performance. In the end, the rest of the world is also reaping the benefits through UMTS/WCDMA.
Of course, not using the same standards as everybody else has its own price. The components of CDMA cell phones cost more and the system itself is more complicated, so CDMA versions of cell phones hit the market six months to a year after their GSM counterparts, if at all. The infrastructure cost of a rare system is higher as well, so AT&T had to rip apart its network to replace it with GSM version about five years after rolling it out. Sprint is probably going to convert Nextel's system in the near future as well.
I hope this answers your question.
neko girl
Mar 5, 03:18 AM
From what I understand:
sysiphus
Mar 21, 12:37 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)