ten-oak-druid
Apr 4, 12:42 PM
What a bunch of winey gun-control people in here, the only down side was that the other two involved weren't shot and killed now they get to cost the tax payers more money in court. :rolleyes:
you're quite the hero. :rolleyes:
you're quite the hero. :rolleyes:
extraextra
Sep 12, 06:40 PM
I wish the games worked on a 4G iPod. I guess I'll have to wait for the warranty to expire and then for it to die before I spring for a 5G. Hopefully by then there will be a 6G widescreen iPod!
I'm more curious about the iPod nano 4GB = $149 and then the regular iPod 30GB = $249 pricing than the pricing between the 30GB and 80GB.
I'm more curious about the iPod nano 4GB = $149 and then the regular iPod 30GB = $249 pricing than the pricing between the 30GB and 80GB.
sisyphus
Sep 10, 09:33 PM
Flame me if you must, but what is the sense in having multiple cores if the software running on it doesn't take advantage of it? Same thing with advertising the new chips as being 64 bit. That's great, but I don't have anything (not in beta) that can use it.
Apple themselves have never been great at making use of multiple processors (in tandem), so I'm not getting how 4, 8, 32 cores makes much difference?
According to the Page 2 Rumors there are some significant speed ups to OpenGL in the next update to 10.4 due to multithreading. Apple has had 4 processor systems for over a year now. I would think they have some ideas about how to make use of it.
Things like the next version of iChat... 1 core to run some application, another for the computer to compress that image into a nice stream to be broadcast over the net, and another to do the actual operation of iChat and the OS and whatever else you have in the background at the time.
There are all sorts of stupid (and not so stupid) ways to eat up processor cycles if you have them. :rolleyes:
Apple themselves have never been great at making use of multiple processors (in tandem), so I'm not getting how 4, 8, 32 cores makes much difference?
According to the Page 2 Rumors there are some significant speed ups to OpenGL in the next update to 10.4 due to multithreading. Apple has had 4 processor systems for over a year now. I would think they have some ideas about how to make use of it.
Things like the next version of iChat... 1 core to run some application, another for the computer to compress that image into a nice stream to be broadcast over the net, and another to do the actual operation of iChat and the OS and whatever else you have in the background at the time.
There are all sorts of stupid (and not so stupid) ways to eat up processor cycles if you have them. :rolleyes:
cardude280
May 3, 11:33 AM
As before, that support is entirely derived from ATI's GPUs and the available number of outputs.
You can get 5 Mini-DisplayPort connectors on a single slot video card.
but i thought half the point of TB was that you would only need one output from the computer, and since we don't have any TB displays (or anything for that matter) how do we know that the ports are limited to one display?
You can get 5 Mini-DisplayPort connectors on a single slot video card.
but i thought half the point of TB was that you would only need one output from the computer, and since we don't have any TB displays (or anything for that matter) how do we know that the ports are limited to one display?
mterlouw
Sep 4, 03:25 PM
I think it is the highly anticipated iToilet with universal iPod dock and count 'em four AppleTalk ports.
poppe
Aug 28, 06:49 PM
hahahahahhahaha
merom is better than everyone anticipated... ---> http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/laptops/intel-core-duo-whassup-faster-197105.php
all the people who said it's only marginal at best can stick it where the sun don't shine! suckaaaaaaaaaaaaaazzzz
Cool find, but I dont much believe it completely.
Just my thought...
I just trust that Arstancia website (how ever it is spelled) They did a core 2 duo laptop review and got some performance increases of around 10-15% but never 22%...
merom is better than everyone anticipated... ---> http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/laptops/intel-core-duo-whassup-faster-197105.php
all the people who said it's only marginal at best can stick it where the sun don't shine! suckaaaaaaaaaaaaaazzzz
Cool find, but I dont much believe it completely.
Just my thought...
I just trust that Arstancia website (how ever it is spelled) They did a core 2 duo laptop review and got some performance increases of around 10-15% but never 22%...
milo
Sep 5, 04:00 PM
certainly not if you own the content. cds don't have ads, but radio does.
And DVD's don't have ads even if you rent them (other than trailers, which is pretty standard).
And DVD's don't have ads even if you rent them (other than trailers, which is pretty standard).
gugy
Aug 28, 12:39 PM
I dream of a new macbook pro enclosure...
wake up then, because it won't happen for awhile.
The current enclosure is very nice, so why change it?
wake up then, because it won't happen for awhile.
The current enclosure is very nice, so why change it?
bloodycape
Sep 12, 06:44 PM
Too bad they didn't keep the 60gig and set its price at $300 and upgrade it also. They could have made a real killing there.
GGJstudios
Mar 8, 12:13 PM
Safari!
False.
How would Safari be able to install that stuff? Forgive me for not knowing, but I haven't seen anything that allowed you to install software, or any executable code, from iOS Safari. Not with Apple's model. Maybe jailbroken, but that's a different story.
The other poster doesn't know what they're talking about.
False.
How would Safari be able to install that stuff? Forgive me for not knowing, but I haven't seen anything that allowed you to install software, or any executable code, from iOS Safari. Not with Apple's model. Maybe jailbroken, but that's a different story.
The other poster doesn't know what they're talking about.
aiqw9182
Apr 25, 02:55 PM
Please :rolleyes:
Do you mean they lack the power or that its not a selectable option? They have the power, have had it for years. Dual 2560x1600 screen setups off one graphics card is easily attainable.
Then show me a single modern GPU displaying more than 2560x1600 on a single display. I'd love to see it.
Do you mean they lack the power or that its not a selectable option? They have the power, have had it for years. Dual 2560x1600 screen setups off one graphics card is easily attainable.
Then show me a single modern GPU displaying more than 2560x1600 on a single display. I'd love to see it.
Leej
Sep 26, 10:12 PM
Already have a Cingular deal. Sweet!
nwcs
Apr 4, 12:16 PM
This is a silly debate here. Having known trained officers and military people and being related to some I can tell you one thing: they are taught to neutralize the threat. They certainly don't want to but if you hesitate you die. Chest shots are preferable because it's easier to target but head shots sometimes happen. People should be thinking about the guard who will undoubtedly need time to work through this ordeal.
Multimedia
Sep 13, 01:19 AM
The files are much larger both the bought stuff and the home encodes. (but thats what you expect with four times the pixels) but they look fantastic when your ipod is connected to a tv compared to the old encodes.Yes except I have been getting excellent looking TV playback from iPod w/oH.264 by encoding 544x400 SD and 624x352 HD and I am able to keep the bit rate down to no more than 1000kbps HD and 700 SD still looking great.
The Apple H.264 Fixed Export bitrate is aparently 1500 kbps which I think is excessive and unnecessary.
To sum up after testing the new H.264 640x480 fixed preset encoder Apple offers in QT Pro:
1. Result is a 640x480 1639kbps 222MB mp4 movie after three stage process that takes much longer than:
2. NON H.264 Two-pass Handbrake FFmpeg encoding 544x400 - Max res allowed pre-iPod 1.2 - 739kbps 100MB mp4 movie looks almost the same.
3. I'm gonna have to remain a NON-H.264 advocate under these circumstances.
I just can't see the additional file size being worth it. In fact, my guess is, if I could control the size of the H.264 export, the 100MB version would be inferior to the Handbrake NON version @ 100MB 2-pass. They are just that close when looking at both of the above.
Note: We don't yet know what the new NON H.264 maximum resolution is that is still iPod compatible under the new 1.2 OS. We can't assume it's also 640 x 480 without H.264 encoding. That is not clear at all yet.
The Apple H.264 Fixed Export bitrate is aparently 1500 kbps which I think is excessive and unnecessary.
To sum up after testing the new H.264 640x480 fixed preset encoder Apple offers in QT Pro:
1. Result is a 640x480 1639kbps 222MB mp4 movie after three stage process that takes much longer than:
2. NON H.264 Two-pass Handbrake FFmpeg encoding 544x400 - Max res allowed pre-iPod 1.2 - 739kbps 100MB mp4 movie looks almost the same.
3. I'm gonna have to remain a NON-H.264 advocate under these circumstances.
I just can't see the additional file size being worth it. In fact, my guess is, if I could control the size of the H.264 export, the 100MB version would be inferior to the Handbrake NON version @ 100MB 2-pass. They are just that close when looking at both of the above.
Note: We don't yet know what the new NON H.264 maximum resolution is that is still iPod compatible under the new 1.2 OS. We can't assume it's also 640 x 480 without H.264 encoding. That is not clear at all yet.
jaigo
Oct 12, 03:36 PM
why is apple wasting time, money and resources on a damn red U2 ipod? I hope the Zune becomes a big hit and takes a big chunk out of apple market share so they can focus on making a better product instead of these stupid minor updates and colors. :mad:
HecubusPro
Sep 13, 09:18 PM
Not what i was looking for
I wanted a smart phone wheres the keyboard ?
i can buy an itunes phone right now from cingular but i dont want one
what makes them think i will buy one now because its from apple and not motorola
I think one of the main tenets to apple's philosophy is simplicity, from their iPods to their computer systems to their OS. I just could not see apple releasing something to a consumer market that would place it over the heads of everyday, casual users, which is who apple traditionally aims for. A smart iPhone would add way too much complexity for that basic demographic.
If this is truly what to expect when the phone comes out, then it's obviously not for you. While I too would like to see something as you described, I also find the simplicity of apple products alluring. I'd be very interested in this product.
I wanted a smart phone wheres the keyboard ?
i can buy an itunes phone right now from cingular but i dont want one
what makes them think i will buy one now because its from apple and not motorola
I think one of the main tenets to apple's philosophy is simplicity, from their iPods to their computer systems to their OS. I just could not see apple releasing something to a consumer market that would place it over the heads of everyday, casual users, which is who apple traditionally aims for. A smart iPhone would add way too much complexity for that basic demographic.
If this is truly what to expect when the phone comes out, then it's obviously not for you. While I too would like to see something as you described, I also find the simplicity of apple products alluring. I'd be very interested in this product.
SPUY767
Sep 14, 10:05 AM
You had me up until the magnesium body.
It would have to be made out of aluminium.
-B
Chrome-Molybdenum. Yup, blindingly brilliant in the sun and scratch resistant.
It would have to be made out of aluminium.
-B
Chrome-Molybdenum. Yup, blindingly brilliant in the sun and scratch resistant.
toddybody
Mar 22, 03:35 PM
Ahhh, its all good folks. Juiceduece and I just disagree:) No worries! Actually for the record...Im glad Apple went with the 27inch 1440p monitor (ive always been a sucker for 16:9). I just think the 24 wasnt "useless"...thats all. :D
itsmenyc
Mar 29, 03:07 PM
Just out of idle curiosity: is IDC ever right? Ever nearly right?
No, never. They should be IDK not IDC! :D
No, never. They should be IDK not IDC! :D
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 01:53 AM
No different? What planet on you living on because it's not Earth.... The link quoted tested a slow 2.5" drive and still showed a 3.5x speed improvement. USB3 can only go as fast as the drive it's connected to. You're going to find that out with TB as well. You can't make gold out of dirt.
These people on here suggesting Intel should can USB3 are not real computer users. They're non-computer types that don't know WTF they're talking about. Period. There is NO reason to NOT use USB3 on new computers. Their cost is next to nothing. They're 100% backwards compatible with USB2.0,1.1 and 1.0 and you'll need those ports regardless whether your computer has TB or not. Not having USB3 simply means less flexibility. Even if you hate it, your friend comes over with his 7200RPM USB3 drive and connects it to your Mac using USB 2.0 and instead of going 110MB/sec as it would under USB3, it goes 30-35MB/sec under USB 2.0. He then asks you why your Mac SUCKS SO HARD and your reply will be that he should have paid $400 for that drive with a TB connector instead of $150 with a USB3 connector (even though TB will not go faster because that's the limit of the drive itself). Your friend will then suggest you give him some money since you're stinking loaded to WASTE $250 more on the TB drive when USB3 would have done just as well. But then you remind him that Apple don't support no stinking USB3 and he then tells you that his PC just 'PWNED' your 'Crapple'. :eek:
Apple isn't doing themselves ANY favors to ignore mainstream tech. They want TB? Fine, but don't leave out USB3 to spite yourself. Oh wait. They already did that with Blu-Ray.... :rolleyes:
Or you could just buy a multi-port Thunderbolt adapter(that supports USB 3) for less than $10 when they are released making your half-baked scenario completely worthless.
Lol
Oh and why would someone pay extra money for a drive that can reach at the LOWEST twice the performance of USB 3? Gee, I wonder. I'd love to know where you got the sales figures from also.
These people on here suggesting Intel should can USB3 are not real computer users. They're non-computer types that don't know WTF they're talking about. Period. There is NO reason to NOT use USB3 on new computers. Their cost is next to nothing. They're 100% backwards compatible with USB2.0,1.1 and 1.0 and you'll need those ports regardless whether your computer has TB or not. Not having USB3 simply means less flexibility. Even if you hate it, your friend comes over with his 7200RPM USB3 drive and connects it to your Mac using USB 2.0 and instead of going 110MB/sec as it would under USB3, it goes 30-35MB/sec under USB 2.0. He then asks you why your Mac SUCKS SO HARD and your reply will be that he should have paid $400 for that drive with a TB connector instead of $150 with a USB3 connector (even though TB will not go faster because that's the limit of the drive itself). Your friend will then suggest you give him some money since you're stinking loaded to WASTE $250 more on the TB drive when USB3 would have done just as well. But then you remind him that Apple don't support no stinking USB3 and he then tells you that his PC just 'PWNED' your 'Crapple'. :eek:
Apple isn't doing themselves ANY favors to ignore mainstream tech. They want TB? Fine, but don't leave out USB3 to spite yourself. Oh wait. They already did that with Blu-Ray.... :rolleyes:
Or you could just buy a multi-port Thunderbolt adapter(that supports USB 3) for less than $10 when they are released making your half-baked scenario completely worthless.
Lol
Oh and why would someone pay extra money for a drive that can reach at the LOWEST twice the performance of USB 3? Gee, I wonder. I'd love to know where you got the sales figures from also.
jwdsail
May 3, 07:49 PM
I'm thinking of a 3-monitor gaming/sim setup. No desk - think cockpit.
iRacing with Bootcamp and x-plane should be amazing w/ this set-up ;-)
Oh, yeah, and FCP and Aperture of course... This will be for work.. honest!
iRacing with Bootcamp and x-plane should be amazing w/ this set-up ;-)
Oh, yeah, and FCP and Aperture of course... This will be for work.. honest!
VenusianSky
Mar 29, 11:58 AM
Smartphones will be obsolete by 2015. Telepathy is the future of telecommunications :p :D
mrkramer
Apr 25, 01:13 AM
Good luck with reporting my plates. I've done that to drunk drivers before, the 911 operator has told me "We're sorry sir, we cannot divert officers based on heresy." Also, see above: My uncle is the traffic court judge in the jurisdiction where I did this, good luck getting a ticket to stand.
If your uncle lets you off for something like that I hope he gets caught and thrown in jail for corruption like he would deserve. And in most places cops do go after people who are reported as drunk, or unsafe drivers.
The simple fact is that I should not have to obey a 70mph speed limit if I don't want to. Why would I even bother driving a car that can hit 186mph (with the speed governor removed, with the governor top speed is 155mph) at 70 mph? A Ford Fiesta can hit those speeds, what's the point of fast cars if you're going to follow the speed limit in them?
And at your age you probably shouldn't be driving a car with that much power, you don't know how to handle it.
If your uncle lets you off for something like that I hope he gets caught and thrown in jail for corruption like he would deserve. And in most places cops do go after people who are reported as drunk, or unsafe drivers.
The simple fact is that I should not have to obey a 70mph speed limit if I don't want to. Why would I even bother driving a car that can hit 186mph (with the speed governor removed, with the governor top speed is 155mph) at 70 mph? A Ford Fiesta can hit those speeds, what's the point of fast cars if you're going to follow the speed limit in them?
And at your age you probably shouldn't be driving a car with that much power, you don't know how to handle it.
iGary
Sep 12, 03:29 PM
Apple announces a decent upgrade to a great product
That was already a YEAR OLD.
That was already a YEAR OLD.
0 comments:
Post a Comment