Tomaz
Aug 7, 03:40 PM
The top secret features better be REALLY good, this was disappointing and nothing was really new! Cupertino started it's photocopiers.... (The Vista banners are an actual joke after this keynote) :(
shawnce
Aug 6, 02:45 PM
So to post my top bets for WWDC...
1) A much clearer roadmap for 64 bit support in Mac OS X. I believe they will outline full 64 bit support across all non-10.4 deprecated frameworks (I believe in the initial release of 10.5). Of course it will also fully support 32 bit applications run side by side with 64 bit applications.
2) Resolution Independent UI will be ready for main stream use with display products possible with in the next year or two (would love to be surprised with 150-200 DPI or so display of course).
3) Quartz 2D Extreme will be ready for main stream use along with some good news on the OpenGL front.
4) Full roll out of the unified user interface look and fell across all frameworks and Apple applications (at least most).
5) Improved Quartz API to allow for more advanced window styles and effects.
6) PowerMac replacement with Quad core model... a true workstation class system (likely similar enclosure to what we have now in the PMG5).
... gotta go.
1) A much clearer roadmap for 64 bit support in Mac OS X. I believe they will outline full 64 bit support across all non-10.4 deprecated frameworks (I believe in the initial release of 10.5). Of course it will also fully support 32 bit applications run side by side with 64 bit applications.
2) Resolution Independent UI will be ready for main stream use with display products possible with in the next year or two (would love to be surprised with 150-200 DPI or so display of course).
3) Quartz 2D Extreme will be ready for main stream use along with some good news on the OpenGL front.
4) Full roll out of the unified user interface look and fell across all frameworks and Apple applications (at least most).
5) Improved Quartz API to allow for more advanced window styles and effects.
6) PowerMac replacement with Quad core model... a true workstation class system (likely similar enclosure to what we have now in the PMG5).
... gotta go.
Amazing Iceman
Mar 23, 08:28 AM
And every new version of itunes requires a bigger and faster computer to run, your point? Hardware moves on , every companys takes advantage of that.
office 2010 runs fine on older hardware just like windows 7 does. I would suggest you tr it out yourself before making such statements. Office 2010 runs fine on my 5 year old computer my wife uses.
If you read my original post, you'll notice that I was referring to the fact that many programmers are careless about optimizing their code all because they can count on a large amount of resources, and because they get lazy.
That's why recently Microsoft made a big deal about some of their new software being either rewritten or optimized, when the case is that it was already expected from them to deploy optimized software.
Most Mac programmers are good at optimizing, while many Windows programmers are not.
I have seen Office for Windows run on several computers, as I provide IT support. I know how it works, not just because I see it, but because the users complain about it. Surely, it may run decent on a system with a large size of RAM, but if they didn't have that much RAM and the previous version ran fine with what they had, and now the new one runs slow while adding not enough functionality, then that's being a sloppy programmer.
I don't want to start a discussion about Office I don't really have a problem about it, plus it gets off topic.
office 2010 runs fine on older hardware just like windows 7 does. I would suggest you tr it out yourself before making such statements. Office 2010 runs fine on my 5 year old computer my wife uses.
If you read my original post, you'll notice that I was referring to the fact that many programmers are careless about optimizing their code all because they can count on a large amount of resources, and because they get lazy.
That's why recently Microsoft made a big deal about some of their new software being either rewritten or optimized, when the case is that it was already expected from them to deploy optimized software.
Most Mac programmers are good at optimizing, while many Windows programmers are not.
I have seen Office for Windows run on several computers, as I provide IT support. I know how it works, not just because I see it, but because the users complain about it. Surely, it may run decent on a system with a large size of RAM, but if they didn't have that much RAM and the previous version ran fine with what they had, and now the new one runs slow while adding not enough functionality, then that's being a sloppy programmer.
I don't want to start a discussion about Office I don't really have a problem about it, plus it gets off topic.
SuperCachetes
Feb 28, 08:45 PM
No because heterosexuality is the default way the brain works
...And the Oscar for "Greatest Generalization In An Online Forum" goes to...
You.
:rolleyes:
...And the Oscar for "Greatest Generalization In An Online Forum" goes to...
You.
:rolleyes:
ClimbingTheLog
Jul 20, 12:56 PM
Anyone else think this is getting out of hand? Two cores, great improvement. Four cores, ehh it's faster but Joe can't tell. Eight cores, now thats just stupid.
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram :p (ok it will be at least a GB).
Have you ever owned a machine that hasn't been CPU bound? I know I haven't.
you need to do your math better, extra core = 1.5x - 1.8x speed increase. but still the same power usage as a normal core!
Where do you get these magical free electrons to drive the second core? That's some fancy silicon that uses 0W.
eight cores + Tiger = Octopussy?!?
Even Apple isn't that cool. Alas, I fear "Mac Pro 8x3.2"
How fast do you want mail to go? The main reasons you need good processors is not for browsing, e-mail, text, and such and such. I highly doubt someone who does all these things on a five year old computer will be much slower than someone on a 16 GB RAM top of the line Powermac
Have you ever done a search on a large volume of mail with AppleMail? That can eat my CPU for hours on a large IMAP mailstore on a 1.5 year old Mac. How about using Firefox with a number of useful extensions? CPU pegged for minutes when loading up the day's news stories from my RSS reader, and that's with a 2-year old Mac.
Bring the speed.
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram :p (ok it will be at least a GB).
Have you ever owned a machine that hasn't been CPU bound? I know I haven't.
you need to do your math better, extra core = 1.5x - 1.8x speed increase. but still the same power usage as a normal core!
Where do you get these magical free electrons to drive the second core? That's some fancy silicon that uses 0W.
eight cores + Tiger = Octopussy?!?
Even Apple isn't that cool. Alas, I fear "Mac Pro 8x3.2"
How fast do you want mail to go? The main reasons you need good processors is not for browsing, e-mail, text, and such and such. I highly doubt someone who does all these things on a five year old computer will be much slower than someone on a 16 GB RAM top of the line Powermac
Have you ever done a search on a large volume of mail with AppleMail? That can eat my CPU for hours on a large IMAP mailstore on a 1.5 year old Mac. How about using Firefox with a number of useful extensions? CPU pegged for minutes when loading up the day's news stories from my RSS reader, and that's with a 2-year old Mac.
Bring the speed.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 1, 05:00 AM
What I do is none of your damn business. And your opinion has no bearing on my life. Why you feel the need to tell others what to do is beyond me. Take care of your own house, let me take care of mine.
I don't want to know what Lee does. I've said what I believe. I haven't told anyone to do anything.
I don't want to know what Lee does. I've said what I believe. I haven't told anyone to do anything.
ArchaicRevival
Apr 6, 02:10 PM
Epic. Fail.
pubwvj
Aug 25, 05:19 PM
I'm having a problem. Last year I bought an iBook that was supposed to come with a free iPod. I got the iPod, called in and registered, did the paper work for the rebate and sent that in right away. Never got a check. I called up to find out where my rebate was and they are telling me that they aren't responsible for rebates lost in the mail - tough luck. I've been through many phone calls with many people at Apple on this. It's going nowhere. It is absurd that this happened. I bought the iPod and iBook directly from them through the Apple Store. They have all the information, which they have verified they have. But they won't send me my $179. Beware, Apple is not standing behind their rebate offers.
2nd Problem, Apple sent a repair guy out to fix a iMac. He did but when he put the case back together he didn't do it right. Now the case is partially open. Minor but annoying.
3rd Problem, I have an Apple product, which I won't name as I'm trying to get it taken care of right now, and it keeps failing, the replacement fails, etc. What happened to quality manufacturing? Apple's losing it.
2nd Problem, Apple sent a repair guy out to fix a iMac. He did but when he put the case back together he didn't do it right. Now the case is partially open. Minor but annoying.
3rd Problem, I have an Apple product, which I won't name as I'm trying to get it taken care of right now, and it keeps failing, the replacement fails, etc. What happened to quality manufacturing? Apple's losing it.
superfula
Apr 6, 10:53 AM
Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
Of course we do. The integrated graphics card will perform just as poorly as every other Sandy Bridge processor because it's the same.
Of course we do. The integrated graphics card will perform just as poorly as every other Sandy Bridge processor because it's the same.
daze
Aug 27, 12:29 PM
Speaking of wish expectations Multimedia;
I know you're hangin' out for Santa Rosa. The article mentions that it's expected in early 2007. Do you think that would be the date for official announcement of production-standard architecture, or actual availability announcement?
Seems very early to be shipping...
I could go out in September and get a Merom notebook, but I don't mind waiting 6 months for Santa Rosa to hit the street.
Why not wait for the one after Santa Rosa? Then the one after... ;)
I know you're hangin' out for Santa Rosa. The article mentions that it's expected in early 2007. Do you think that would be the date for official announcement of production-standard architecture, or actual availability announcement?
Seems very early to be shipping...
I could go out in September and get a Merom notebook, but I don't mind waiting 6 months for Santa Rosa to hit the street.
Why not wait for the one after Santa Rosa? Then the one after... ;)
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
X2468
Mar 31, 06:54 PM
Not a problem for me. HTC does a great job keeping phones updated.
Precisely. I've been using HTC Android phones concurrently with my iPhones since I have multiple lines. I happen to like both platforms.
What the Android haters here fail to realize, is that they cannot act like adults and say I like this about my iPhone far better than Android.
Nooooo. They've got to preface it with something derogatory like "crappy Android" or worse. It shows their immaturity and inability to act intelligent. They reduce themselves to childish dolts. Idiots at best.
Precisely. I've been using HTC Android phones concurrently with my iPhones since I have multiple lines. I happen to like both platforms.
What the Android haters here fail to realize, is that they cannot act like adults and say I like this about my iPhone far better than Android.
Nooooo. They've got to preface it with something derogatory like "crappy Android" or worse. It shows their immaturity and inability to act intelligent. They reduce themselves to childish dolts. Idiots at best.
MacinDoc
Sep 19, 01:14 PM
I'm finding it hilarious that you can put yourself into Stevie's reality distortion field even after the Intel switch. Maybe while Apple had PPC, you could have said that. But now that direct hardware comparisons can be made, don't you think it's stupid that sub-$1000 PC notebooks have better processors than the best Apple has to offer?
And yes, the MBP is a top-of-the-line laptop. Apart from 2'' thick behemoths, it was one of the fastest portables around, and it was priced accordingly. Now it's still priced as such, but times are moving, technology is advancing, and if you compare pound for pound, the MBP is behind.
Sorry, but you're in an Intel RDF if you think that a 1.66 GHz C2D is a better processor than a 2.33 GHz CD. For practical purposes, the only differences at this time between CD and C2D are SSE3 instructions and slightly better power management. Nonetheless, you can rest assured that C2D MBPs will be SHIPPING by Sept. 25.
And yes, the MBP is a top-of-the-line laptop. Apart from 2'' thick behemoths, it was one of the fastest portables around, and it was priced accordingly. Now it's still priced as such, but times are moving, technology is advancing, and if you compare pound for pound, the MBP is behind.
Sorry, but you're in an Intel RDF if you think that a 1.66 GHz C2D is a better processor than a 2.33 GHz CD. For practical purposes, the only differences at this time between CD and C2D are SSE3 instructions and slightly better power management. Nonetheless, you can rest assured that C2D MBPs will be SHIPPING by Sept. 25.
janstett
Sep 13, 01:37 PM
The OS takes advantage of the extra 4 cores already therefore its ahead of the technology curve, correct? Gee, no innovation here...please move along folks. :rolleyes:
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores. You think those fools (the same idiots who came up with Genuine Advantage) actually optimized their OS to run in an 8 core setup? Please pass along what you're smoking. :rolleyes:
Sorry to burst your reality distortion field, but see my previous post. I ran a dual processor Pentium II NT setup ten years ago and Windows handled it just fine THEN -- back when Apple barely supported it with a hack to its cooperatively-multitasked OS and required specially written applications with special library support.
BTW my 2 year old Smithfield handles 4 processors fine (Dual Core Pentium Extreme with hyperthreading = 4 cores).
The only limit with Windows is they keep the low end XP home to 2 processors on the same die. There is probably an architectural limit on both OSX and XP and if it's not 8 it's 16. It's probably 8.
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores. You think those fools (the same idiots who came up with Genuine Advantage) actually optimized their OS to run in an 8 core setup? Please pass along what you're smoking. :rolleyes:
Sorry to burst your reality distortion field, but see my previous post. I ran a dual processor Pentium II NT setup ten years ago and Windows handled it just fine THEN -- back when Apple barely supported it with a hack to its cooperatively-multitasked OS and required specially written applications with special library support.
BTW my 2 year old Smithfield handles 4 processors fine (Dual Core Pentium Extreme with hyperthreading = 4 cores).
The only limit with Windows is they keep the low end XP home to 2 processors on the same die. There is probably an architectural limit on both OSX and XP and if it's not 8 it's 16. It's probably 8.
Trekkie
Sep 18, 02:19 PM
The Thinkpad X40 I'm typing from Bluescreened on me no longer than three weeks ago. My crime? coming out of suspend mode.
Windows Crashes.
Believe it or not, Mac OS X can crash too. While it is prettier, it's still a crash.
Pretty funny reading the last few pages, thanks for the laughs.
Windows Crashes.
Believe it or not, Mac OS X can crash too. While it is prettier, it's still a crash.
Pretty funny reading the last few pages, thanks for the laughs.
dornoforpyros
Sep 13, 07:13 AM
DAMN :eek:
so 2-3 years from now are people going to be asking "do I need a quad core or an 8 core macbook? oh yeah I'll mostly be surfing the web and maybe editing a photo once and a while" :rolleyes:
so 2-3 years from now are people going to be asking "do I need a quad core or an 8 core macbook? oh yeah I'll mostly be surfing the web and maybe editing a photo once and a while" :rolleyes:
ergle2
Sep 13, 01:00 PM
So Merom(Merom Santa Rosa)/Conroe/Woodcrest(Clovertown) are the end of the road of separate chips. No more mobile/desktop/sever chip... all are the same (should expect mobiles to have the lowest MHz, then desktop, then toping out with server)
I think you've misunderstood.
Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest are one microarch now. That's Intel's point -- the core is essentially the same. Then they package as appropriate for a given market. Merom is lower-voltage/lower-clockspeed, Woodcrest has the external pins for multi-processor exposed and has a higher FSB, etc.
There will still be different chips for different markets, but the arch is the same across the board. This is a significant difference from the Pentium-4/Pentium-M days, where the arch was very, very different.
The other big difference is the support chipsets -- the Xeon range use a different chipset that supports FBDIMM vs DDR2 for the Core 2 branded chips. This is the reason Intel kept the memory controller off the CPU die, so that they had more flexibility with memory types.
I think you've misunderstood.
Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest are one microarch now. That's Intel's point -- the core is essentially the same. Then they package as appropriate for a given market. Merom is lower-voltage/lower-clockspeed, Woodcrest has the external pins for multi-processor exposed and has a higher FSB, etc.
There will still be different chips for different markets, but the arch is the same across the board. This is a significant difference from the Pentium-4/Pentium-M days, where the arch was very, very different.
The other big difference is the support chipsets -- the Xeon range use a different chipset that supports FBDIMM vs DDR2 for the Core 2 branded chips. This is the reason Intel kept the memory controller off the CPU die, so that they had more flexibility with memory types.
MacRumors
Aug 7, 03:14 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Also during Apple's WWDC keynote, Steve Jobs previewed Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard). Among the features demonstrated were:
- 64 bit (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/64bit.html) application support extended throughought the User Interface layer of the OS, allowing "full" 64-bit application development and deployment.
- Time Machine (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/timemachine.html), automatic backup and restoring of files corrupted or accidentally deleted or overwritten by the user.
- Spaces (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/spaces.html), Apple's implementation of virtual desktops.
- Core Animation (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/coreanimation.html)
- Enhancements to Dashboard (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/dashboard.html), Spotlight (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/spotlight.html), Mail (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/mail.html), iCal (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/ical.html) and Universal Access (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/accessibility.html)
- Boot Camp, and "next generation" Front Row, and Photo Booth bundled
Apple plan to release Leopard in "Spring 2007."
More information can be found at Apple's Leopard Sneak Peek (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/) pages.
Also during Apple's WWDC keynote, Steve Jobs previewed Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard). Among the features demonstrated were:
- 64 bit (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/64bit.html) application support extended throughought the User Interface layer of the OS, allowing "full" 64-bit application development and deployment.
- Time Machine (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/timemachine.html), automatic backup and restoring of files corrupted or accidentally deleted or overwritten by the user.
- Spaces (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/spaces.html), Apple's implementation of virtual desktops.
- Core Animation (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/coreanimation.html)
- Enhancements to Dashboard (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/dashboard.html), Spotlight (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/spotlight.html), Mail (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/mail.html), iCal (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/ical.html) and Universal Access (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/accessibility.html)
- Boot Camp, and "next generation" Front Row, and Photo Booth bundled
Apple plan to release Leopard in "Spring 2007."
More information can be found at Apple's Leopard Sneak Peek (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/) pages.
OneMike
Mar 26, 06:27 PM
No Rosetta, no sale for me. Not ready to move on.
I'm glad rosetta is going away. Maybe the dev will finally update the app.
I'm glad rosetta is going away. Maybe the dev will finally update the app.
ergle2
Sep 14, 10:49 PM
Really, completely new? As in, to Core 2 what the G5 was to G4? In just two years?? I guess they're really ramping things up... Core 3 Hexa Mac Pros, anyone?
Intel's stated plans as I understand them are thus:
A new micro-arch every 2 years. I don't think they mean brand new so much as "significant changes/improvements". Whether this is akin to Yonah->Conroe or Netburst->Conroe remains to be seen, but more like the former (or perhaps Pentium-M -> Merom -- Core Duo was very much a stop-gap). Little has been released about Nehalem, but at one time it was slated as "based on Banias/Dothan", due in 2005 and expected to ramp to 9/10GHz.
"Off" years will recieve derivative versions (e.g. Merom->Penryn), which appears to be mostly stuff like L2 cache increases, faster FSB speeds (at least while we have FSBs - 2008 looks like the year for DCI, finally), die shrinks, increasing the number of cores (expect at least one to be more cores on a single die instead of two dice/package), etc.
Die shrinks are currently scheduled for "off" years, in order to stablize the process ready for the new micro-arch in the following year so Intel doesn't need to deal with both new process and new arch at the same time, and presumably in part to keep speed increases coming in "off" years
Of course, roadmaps can change quite rapidly -- it's not that long ago that Whitfield was expected to debut late 2006 with DCI (FSB replacement). Whitfield was replaced by Tigerton which is now due sometime in 2007...
One thing's for sure, Intel appears to have learnt a great deal from the Netburst fiasco -- how not to do things, if nothing else. Unfortunately, they still estimate ~50% of processors shipping in 1Q2007 will be netburst-based (mostly Pentium-D).
Intel's stated plans as I understand them are thus:
A new micro-arch every 2 years. I don't think they mean brand new so much as "significant changes/improvements". Whether this is akin to Yonah->Conroe or Netburst->Conroe remains to be seen, but more like the former (or perhaps Pentium-M -> Merom -- Core Duo was very much a stop-gap). Little has been released about Nehalem, but at one time it was slated as "based on Banias/Dothan", due in 2005 and expected to ramp to 9/10GHz.
"Off" years will recieve derivative versions (e.g. Merom->Penryn), which appears to be mostly stuff like L2 cache increases, faster FSB speeds (at least while we have FSBs - 2008 looks like the year for DCI, finally), die shrinks, increasing the number of cores (expect at least one to be more cores on a single die instead of two dice/package), etc.
Die shrinks are currently scheduled for "off" years, in order to stablize the process ready for the new micro-arch in the following year so Intel doesn't need to deal with both new process and new arch at the same time, and presumably in part to keep speed increases coming in "off" years
Of course, roadmaps can change quite rapidly -- it's not that long ago that Whitfield was expected to debut late 2006 with DCI (FSB replacement). Whitfield was replaced by Tigerton which is now due sometime in 2007...
One thing's for sure, Intel appears to have learnt a great deal from the Netburst fiasco -- how not to do things, if nothing else. Unfortunately, they still estimate ~50% of processors shipping in 1Q2007 will be netburst-based (mostly Pentium-D).
Flowbee
Mar 22, 12:56 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Yes, and RIM has a history of making excellent touch screen devices.
:rolleyes:
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Yes, and RIM has a history of making excellent touch screen devices.
:rolleyes:
Gelfin
Mar 4, 04:15 PM
Except I was responding to a post that suggested heterosexuals stop having sex...
I've reread the post in question several times, and I am just not seeing it. Would you mind explaining how you came to the conclusion that neko girl was suggesting heterosexuals stop having sex?
I mean, even if she was, good luck with that.
I've reread the post in question several times, and I am just not seeing it. Would you mind explaining how you came to the conclusion that neko girl was suggesting heterosexuals stop having sex?
I mean, even if she was, good luck with that.
epitaphic
Aug 18, 09:12 PM
If you don't think you are going to ever use more than one thing at a time, then you are right. But I think most of us here have 10-15 things open at once and do all sorts of things at once. That's the reason for "Spaces" in Loepard.
We all probably have 15+ apps running at any time, but its very rare to have more than two hammering the CPU (unless its "automated" like with handbrake/toast). That is of course, unless you find yourself editing video whilst designing a website whilst laying out a book whilst writing some music whilst watching superman at the same time. ;)
We all probably have 15+ apps running at any time, but its very rare to have more than two hammering the CPU (unless its "automated" like with handbrake/toast). That is of course, unless you find yourself editing video whilst designing a website whilst laying out a book whilst writing some music whilst watching superman at the same time. ;)
JAT
Apr 6, 04:55 PM
LOL WUT? You're honestly going to count emulated games (pirated in almost all cases) as Android games?
Besides, you can play them on iOS too, if rooted.
Besides, you can play them on iOS too, if rooted.