KnightWRX
Apr 24, 11:34 AM
Side Note:
While reading different sites about screen resolution and retina display and different Apple marketing "bluffs", I got into this:
http://twek.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/a-letter-to-steve-jobs-about-6-bit-macbook-pro-displays/
Which models are like this?
Is this real or another Apple hate thing?
That's a limitation of TN panels. To get true 8 bit per channel, you need to either go with PVA or IPS panels. It's not an "Apple hate" thing, it's quite true. It's also the reason that profesionals usually work on expensive IPS displays and not the sub-200$ LCD screens you see at Best Buy.
The 27" iMac uses an IPS display so it is not affected, however, all Apple notebooks use TN displays. Laptops with IPS screens are very, very rare. One model HP Elitebook comes with an optional IPS display that I know of.
While reading different sites about screen resolution and retina display and different Apple marketing "bluffs", I got into this:
http://twek.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/a-letter-to-steve-jobs-about-6-bit-macbook-pro-displays/
Which models are like this?
Is this real or another Apple hate thing?
That's a limitation of TN panels. To get true 8 bit per channel, you need to either go with PVA or IPS panels. It's not an "Apple hate" thing, it's quite true. It's also the reason that profesionals usually work on expensive IPS displays and not the sub-200$ LCD screens you see at Best Buy.
The 27" iMac uses an IPS display so it is not affected, however, all Apple notebooks use TN displays. Laptops with IPS screens are very, very rare. One model HP Elitebook comes with an optional IPS display that I know of.
SerenityInt
Apr 5, 01:15 PM
The only thing uglier than a Scion is a Scion iPhone theme.
Popeye206
Apr 20, 05:42 AM
What will you do if Apple do make it bigger?
Well... of course I'll bail on Apple and get an Android or MS based phone!
NOT! :p
Personally, I don't think they will. I think they are more concerned about all their customers - men and woman. Large and small. They know overall feel in the hand for all their customers is important and that it's important that it slips easily in your pocket. I don't think anyone here can argue that Apple is one of the best, if not the best out there right now, at product design. This does not happen by accident... I'm sure they test and try many variations to get where they're at.
There are more important things they can do than mess with the best smart phone screen on the market.
No matter what, there's always going to be competitors with something that's bigger or more. But again, it's not about any single thing that makes the overall product. It's the overall product that makes the iPhone so great.
Well... of course I'll bail on Apple and get an Android or MS based phone!
NOT! :p
Personally, I don't think they will. I think they are more concerned about all their customers - men and woman. Large and small. They know overall feel in the hand for all their customers is important and that it's important that it slips easily in your pocket. I don't think anyone here can argue that Apple is one of the best, if not the best out there right now, at product design. This does not happen by accident... I'm sure they test and try many variations to get where they're at.
There are more important things they can do than mess with the best smart phone screen on the market.
No matter what, there's always going to be competitors with something that's bigger or more. But again, it's not about any single thing that makes the overall product. It's the overall product that makes the iPhone so great.
rhsgolfer33
Apr 20, 06:19 PM
Capital gains allows you to choose the timeline and the price to a point. If Capital Gains is special because of time-linked shifts in pricing, why isn't freelance income.
In my mind, income is income.
You certainly can't choose the price in a capital gains situation - that is definitely a market determination; sure, you could sell for less than market it, but that would be pretty stupid and of no benefit.
Capital gains isn't special because of price shifts over time, its special because the government is trying to spur investment - in addition to raising revenue, the tax code is largely a tool to get people to behave in a certain manner. The thought is that giving people a preferential rate on gains from investment encourages people to 1) invest in our economy 2) save for retirement. Whether it works or not is debated by economists and we could probably argue about it all day.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself. I've already addressed that capital gains is not necessarily income.
I'd love it if you could point out where you addressed this, because as a tax accountant, I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when a realized capital gain isn't income - if you have a realized net gain (ie amount realized is greater than your basis in the capital asset), you certainly have income. Certainly you could reinvest that net gain, but that doesn't mean you don't have income, that just means you realized a gain and reinvested the old basis and the gain (income). You're only taxed on realized gains that are recognized by the code (and you can net against realized losses) - sure, I could have an unrealized capital gain that isn't income, but I wouldn't be taxed on it either. Not that I don't agree with some of your points, but I'd really love the same clarification on this that most other posters have been asking for.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
In my mind, income is income.
You certainly can't choose the price in a capital gains situation - that is definitely a market determination; sure, you could sell for less than market it, but that would be pretty stupid and of no benefit.
Capital gains isn't special because of price shifts over time, its special because the government is trying to spur investment - in addition to raising revenue, the tax code is largely a tool to get people to behave in a certain manner. The thought is that giving people a preferential rate on gains from investment encourages people to 1) invest in our economy 2) save for retirement. Whether it works or not is debated by economists and we could probably argue about it all day.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself. I've already addressed that capital gains is not necessarily income.
I'd love it if you could point out where you addressed this, because as a tax accountant, I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when a realized capital gain isn't income - if you have a realized net gain (ie amount realized is greater than your basis in the capital asset), you certainly have income. Certainly you could reinvest that net gain, but that doesn't mean you don't have income, that just means you realized a gain and reinvested the old basis and the gain (income). You're only taxed on realized gains that are recognized by the code (and you can net against realized losses) - sure, I could have an unrealized capital gain that isn't income, but I wouldn't be taxed on it either. Not that I don't agree with some of your points, but I'd really love the same clarification on this that most other posters have been asking for.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
Blakjack
Mar 27, 07:02 AM
The rumors talking about the iPad 3 are mostly saying it would be a different model than the current iPad. There's multiple Macbook Pros. Don't be surprised if there are multiple iPads, like an iPad pro.
There are already multiple iPads.....18 of them to be exact. Why would u think Apple would want to add to this already rediculous number. This whole idea about a iPad pro line needs to stop. It doesn't make sense. It's only 2011. Want an iPad pro.....get an AIR.
There are already multiple iPads.....18 of them to be exact. Why would u think Apple would want to add to this already rediculous number. This whole idea about a iPad pro line needs to stop. It doesn't make sense. It's only 2011. Want an iPad pro.....get an AIR.
CalBoy
May 3, 03:39 PM
I see no reason why 99, 99.5, and 100 are easier to track than 37.2, 37.5, and 37.7. As you said, we accept body temp to be 98.6 and 37.0 in Celsius. If decimals are difficult to remember, then clearly we should pick the scale that represents normal body temp as an integer, right? ;)
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
Perhaps your set of measuring cups is the additional piece of equipment. Indeed you wouldn't need them. For a recipe in SI, the only items you would need are an electronic balance, graduating measuring "cup," and a graduated cylinder. No series of cups or spoons required (although, they do of course come in metric for those so inclined).
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
It might seem that way to you, but the majority of the world uses weight to measure dry ingredients. For them it's just as easy.
Sure when you have a commercial quantity (which is also how companies bake in bulk-by weight), but not when you're making a dozen muffins or cupcakes. The smaller the quantity, the worse off you are with weighing each ingredient in terms of efficiency.
Why would you need alternative names? A recipe would call for "30ml" of any given liquid. There's no need to call it anything else.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
Well, no one would ask for a 237ml vessel because that's an arbitrary number based on a different system of units. But if you wanted, yes, you could measure that amount in a graduated measuring cup (or weigh it on your balance).
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
I suspect people would call it a "quarter liter," much like I would say "quarter gallon."
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
And no, you wouldn't call 500ml a "pint" because, well, why would you? :confused:
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
...But countries using SI do call 500ml a demi-liter ("demi" meaning "half").
Somehow I don't see that becoming popular pub lingo...
This is the case with Si units as well. 500, 250, 125, 75, etc. Though SI units can also be divided by any number you wish. Want to make 1/5 of the recipe? ...Just divide all the numbers by five.
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
Not that OS X Panthera Leo doesn't have a nice ring to it, of course. ;)
No, but it is onerous for kids to learn SI units, which is a mandatory skill in this global world. Like I said, why teach kids two units of measure if one will suffice?
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words? :confused: Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them.
You could be right for international commerce where values have to be recalculated just for the US, but like I said, I think those things should be converted. I don't really care if I buy a 25 gram candy bar as opposed to a 1 ounce candy bar or a 350ml can of soda.
Perhaps true, but just because you switch to metric, doesn't mean you need to stop using tablespoons and teaspoons for measurements. It's all an approximation anyway, since there are far more than 2 different spoon sizes, and many of them look like they're pretty much equal in size to a tablespoon.
I'm sorry, but which tablespoons do you use that aren't tablespoons? The measuring spoons most people have at home for baking are very precise and have the fractions clearly marked on them.
Other than that, there's a teaspoon, tablespoon, and serving spoon (which you wouldn't use as a measurement). The sizes are very different for each of those and I don't think anyone who saw them side by side could confuse them.
So if you're cooking, do what everyone else does with their spoons; if you need a tablespoon, grab the big-ish one and estimate. If you needed more precision than that, why wouldn't you use ml? :confused:
Because it's a heck of a lot easier to think, "I need one xspoon of secret ingredient" than it is to think, "I need xml of secret ingredient." You think like a scientist (because you are one). Most people aren't. That's who the teaspoons and tablespoons are for.
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
Perhaps your set of measuring cups is the additional piece of equipment. Indeed you wouldn't need them. For a recipe in SI, the only items you would need are an electronic balance, graduating measuring "cup," and a graduated cylinder. No series of cups or spoons required (although, they do of course come in metric for those so inclined).
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
It might seem that way to you, but the majority of the world uses weight to measure dry ingredients. For them it's just as easy.
Sure when you have a commercial quantity (which is also how companies bake in bulk-by weight), but not when you're making a dozen muffins or cupcakes. The smaller the quantity, the worse off you are with weighing each ingredient in terms of efficiency.
Why would you need alternative names? A recipe would call for "30ml" of any given liquid. There's no need to call it anything else.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
Well, no one would ask for a 237ml vessel because that's an arbitrary number based on a different system of units. But if you wanted, yes, you could measure that amount in a graduated measuring cup (or weigh it on your balance).
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
I suspect people would call it a "quarter liter," much like I would say "quarter gallon."
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
And no, you wouldn't call 500ml a "pint" because, well, why would you? :confused:
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
...But countries using SI do call 500ml a demi-liter ("demi" meaning "half").
Somehow I don't see that becoming popular pub lingo...
This is the case with Si units as well. 500, 250, 125, 75, etc. Though SI units can also be divided by any number you wish. Want to make 1/5 of the recipe? ...Just divide all the numbers by five.
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
Not that OS X Panthera Leo doesn't have a nice ring to it, of course. ;)
No, but it is onerous for kids to learn SI units, which is a mandatory skill in this global world. Like I said, why teach kids two units of measure if one will suffice?
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words? :confused: Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them.
You could be right for international commerce where values have to be recalculated just for the US, but like I said, I think those things should be converted. I don't really care if I buy a 25 gram candy bar as opposed to a 1 ounce candy bar or a 350ml can of soda.
Perhaps true, but just because you switch to metric, doesn't mean you need to stop using tablespoons and teaspoons for measurements. It's all an approximation anyway, since there are far more than 2 different spoon sizes, and many of them look like they're pretty much equal in size to a tablespoon.
I'm sorry, but which tablespoons do you use that aren't tablespoons? The measuring spoons most people have at home for baking are very precise and have the fractions clearly marked on them.
Other than that, there's a teaspoon, tablespoon, and serving spoon (which you wouldn't use as a measurement). The sizes are very different for each of those and I don't think anyone who saw them side by side could confuse them.
So if you're cooking, do what everyone else does with their spoons; if you need a tablespoon, grab the big-ish one and estimate. If you needed more precision than that, why wouldn't you use ml? :confused:
Because it's a heck of a lot easier to think, "I need one xspoon of secret ingredient" than it is to think, "I need xml of secret ingredient." You think like a scientist (because you are one). Most people aren't. That's who the teaspoons and tablespoons are for.
nverner
Apr 20, 08:08 AM
Just what I thought, not a big update I think iOS 5 will be the big update and not the hardware as such :)
ChristianJapan
May 4, 05:13 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
+1 For henry72's proposal via firmware:
Had the same thought... Get a hot key into the firmware to connect to the official App Store with network settings flexible (eg IP setting; Router etc). Then all the setup can be done from the net.
For power user and enterprises I could imagine to be able to support an own App Store within your network to avoid re-downloading. Similar to the enterprise AppStore for iOS.
+1 For henry72's proposal via firmware:
Had the same thought... Get a hot key into the firmware to connect to the official App Store with network settings flexible (eg IP setting; Router etc). Then all the setup can be done from the net.
For power user and enterprises I could imagine to be able to support an own App Store within your network to avoid re-downloading. Similar to the enterprise AppStore for iOS.
Daveoc64
May 4, 03:15 PM
That's NOT the context here.
I'm the one that raised the point in the first place! I think I set the context!
And don't tell me you take the EULA seriously.
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.
I'm the one that raised the point in the first place! I think I set the context!
And don't tell me you take the EULA seriously.
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.
louden
Jul 21, 08:07 PM
I'd like to see the merom with a new enclosure for the mbp. I like the magnetic latch, and I'd like to see something with a nicer screen and dedicated graphics.
That would look good for vista or macos.
That would look good for vista or macos.
robotx21
Sep 17, 01:11 AM
I think new displays are a STRONG possibility. Digital Photos need NICE big displays :-D Just like video editing does. I think we will definately see new displays announced.
Multimedia
Jul 23, 01:53 PM
I was wondering where you heard that there is going to be a 4 core mobile version of Merom coming Fall '07. Any roadmaps i've read for intel, including that one you linked to (and the Tom's Hardware one) don't mention it. In fact, I didn't even read of a desktop 4 core processor being released until let alone 2007 in a laptop.
Desktop 4 core processors with 8 MiB L2 cache - called Kentsfield are now planned for release in 4th quarter of this year 2006. Desktop 8 core processors with 12 MiB L2 cache - called Yorkfield are planned for next Spring 2007.
On the server-worstation front these are the planned processors coming next year and in 2008:
Woodcrest, first eighth-generation server and workstation chip, 65 nm, dual-core, 4 MiB L2 cache (Released on June 26, 2006)
Clovertown, quad-core MCM, consists of two Woodcrests, with 2 × 4 MiB L2
Tigerton, quad-core MCM. MP-capable version of Clovertown.
Harpertown, either a dual-core, 45 nm shrink of Woodcrest, or an eight-core, 45 nm MCM with 12 MiB L2
Dunnington, four to thirty-two cores, successor to Tigerton
I'm wondering where you heard this because I'm getting a MBP for college next summer and if there were quad core MBPs coming out in the fall I would wait.
(Oh, and if I misinterpreted 4 cores to equal Quad core on a single processor, please clarify what you meant.)4 Mobile Cores In One MBP by end of 2007 Is An Expectation Not A Known Fact. Obviously Intel is not going to project that possability until it knows it can do it sometime next year either possibly by end of 2007 or almost certainly by end of 2008. Sorry for the certain tone of my mention. I put a smillie after that sentence to indicate it was sort of a hopeful joke. :)
We will all have to wait for the '07 WWDC next summer to tell what's going on for the mobile Macs then. Way too early to tell now. I would just be as patient as possible before you have to pull the trigger for school in the fall of '07. In other words, don't put any weight into my hopeful expectation for 4 cores in a mobile Mac by two years from now.
I think it will depend on how well the 45nm production process develops as to how soon Intel will feel confident they can put 4 mobile cores with 12-16 MB of L2 cache in one piece of 45nm silicon and still keep it cool and energy efficient. This is a long term hope and dream for me, nothing substantiated by any sources. Not fantasy. But a realistic hopeful expectation that will most likely be fulfilled in 3 years worst case after Core 3 comes to market which will be about 2 years from now. :)
Each of these Core Families has a life expectancy of about two years of reign plus the half year preceeding early deployment and ramp up.
Core 2 - late 2006-2008
Core 3 - late 2008-2010
Core 4 - late 2010-2012
etc.
And each Family represents significant changes in both the processor architecture and the manufacturing process. We will have to see how the Intel long range plan unfolds as planned or not as planned to determine what will be available in long range future. IE - nobody knows for sure. Right now I can't see beyond a 2.33 GHz Merom with the Santa Rosa support set + 802.11n and 10-Gigabit Ethernet next Spring. Can anyone else here see further?
Desktop 4 core processors with 8 MiB L2 cache - called Kentsfield are now planned for release in 4th quarter of this year 2006. Desktop 8 core processors with 12 MiB L2 cache - called Yorkfield are planned for next Spring 2007.
On the server-worstation front these are the planned processors coming next year and in 2008:
Woodcrest, first eighth-generation server and workstation chip, 65 nm, dual-core, 4 MiB L2 cache (Released on June 26, 2006)
Clovertown, quad-core MCM, consists of two Woodcrests, with 2 × 4 MiB L2
Tigerton, quad-core MCM. MP-capable version of Clovertown.
Harpertown, either a dual-core, 45 nm shrink of Woodcrest, or an eight-core, 45 nm MCM with 12 MiB L2
Dunnington, four to thirty-two cores, successor to Tigerton
I'm wondering where you heard this because I'm getting a MBP for college next summer and if there were quad core MBPs coming out in the fall I would wait.
(Oh, and if I misinterpreted 4 cores to equal Quad core on a single processor, please clarify what you meant.)4 Mobile Cores In One MBP by end of 2007 Is An Expectation Not A Known Fact. Obviously Intel is not going to project that possability until it knows it can do it sometime next year either possibly by end of 2007 or almost certainly by end of 2008. Sorry for the certain tone of my mention. I put a smillie after that sentence to indicate it was sort of a hopeful joke. :)
We will all have to wait for the '07 WWDC next summer to tell what's going on for the mobile Macs then. Way too early to tell now. I would just be as patient as possible before you have to pull the trigger for school in the fall of '07. In other words, don't put any weight into my hopeful expectation for 4 cores in a mobile Mac by two years from now.
I think it will depend on how well the 45nm production process develops as to how soon Intel will feel confident they can put 4 mobile cores with 12-16 MB of L2 cache in one piece of 45nm silicon and still keep it cool and energy efficient. This is a long term hope and dream for me, nothing substantiated by any sources. Not fantasy. But a realistic hopeful expectation that will most likely be fulfilled in 3 years worst case after Core 3 comes to market which will be about 2 years from now. :)
Each of these Core Families has a life expectancy of about two years of reign plus the half year preceeding early deployment and ramp up.
Core 2 - late 2006-2008
Core 3 - late 2008-2010
Core 4 - late 2010-2012
etc.
And each Family represents significant changes in both the processor architecture and the manufacturing process. We will have to see how the Intel long range plan unfolds as planned or not as planned to determine what will be available in long range future. IE - nobody knows for sure. Right now I can't see beyond a 2.33 GHz Merom with the Santa Rosa support set + 802.11n and 10-Gigabit Ethernet next Spring. Can anyone else here see further?
Umbongo
Apr 21, 07:02 PM
I don't see this replacing the Mac Pro Tower. I see it as another solution within the Mac Pro family aimed at the Final Cut Pro Market where the use of several 3U Form Factor Systems would be used for Distributed Compiling/Rendering, etc.
It would be clearly also targeted for Engineering, Medical, Bio-sciences, etc where using OpenCL and GCD in their apps would provide a huge collection of streams/cores to leverage.
The Xserve was pretty much another solution too. Same hardware different form factor.
It would be clearly also targeted for Engineering, Medical, Bio-sciences, etc where using OpenCL and GCD in their apps would provide a huge collection of streams/cores to leverage.
The Xserve was pretty much another solution too. Same hardware different form factor.
Spoony
Apr 18, 04:56 PM
I remember first seeing the GalaxyS and it's such a blatant rip-off of Apple's design they have every right to sue on this..
But now watch as the Apple haters try to weasel this as a 'generic' design..
Apple brings out the 'App Store'.. everyone copies them....It's generic
Apple brings out the iPhone... everyone copies them.. It's generic
Imitation is a form of flattery.. but when you're business depends on having the best designs, you need to protect your edge.
I agree. I think the people posting on blogs like engadget or maybe even here are too young to appreciate the phones we had to use pre 2006/2007. It's as if their first phone was an iphone/android and oh of course why wouldn't a phone behave like this. It's so obvious.
No it's not. It's not that obvious. Phones sucked so bad before the iphone. Smart phones sucked even worse. Treo's, Q's omg. horrible pieces of equipment.
Apple has every right to sue over this. I'm surprised it took them this long.
But now watch as the Apple haters try to weasel this as a 'generic' design..
Apple brings out the 'App Store'.. everyone copies them....It's generic
Apple brings out the iPhone... everyone copies them.. It's generic
Imitation is a form of flattery.. but when you're business depends on having the best designs, you need to protect your edge.
I agree. I think the people posting on blogs like engadget or maybe even here are too young to appreciate the phones we had to use pre 2006/2007. It's as if their first phone was an iphone/android and oh of course why wouldn't a phone behave like this. It's so obvious.
No it's not. It's not that obvious. Phones sucked so bad before the iphone. Smart phones sucked even worse. Treo's, Q's omg. horrible pieces of equipment.
Apple has every right to sue over this. I'm surprised it took them this long.
Jodles
Nov 2, 07:59 PM
just out of curiosity, what type of work?
Lots of places require antivirus software installed to access their internet. I'm at uni and no mac or pc will get internet access unless they pass a test with valid and up to date antivirus. I think it's a good thing, even for mac users, as it limits the amount of viruses that are passed on.
We get McAfee on a uni license, but this might make me consider Sophos instead if it's lighter on system resources (the only thing I don't like about antivirus software...)
Lots of places require antivirus software installed to access their internet. I'm at uni and no mac or pc will get internet access unless they pass a test with valid and up to date antivirus. I think it's a good thing, even for mac users, as it limits the amount of viruses that are passed on.
We get McAfee on a uni license, but this might make me consider Sophos instead if it's lighter on system resources (the only thing I don't like about antivirus software...)
cgmpowers
Aug 2, 11:23 AM
Its been my experience that after the Expo there's always something released about a month or so AFTER the expo.
In addition to that, isn't there a Paris thing in September or something in September?? I remember seeing September on a calendar somewhere that related to Apple...
Christopher Powers
In addition to that, isn't there a Paris thing in September or something in September?? I remember seeing September on a calendar somewhere that related to Apple...
Christopher Powers
Chundles
Sep 10, 11:23 PM
Wanted to add to this thread the "interesting" picture...
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/2006/09/sept12pic.jpg
Source: http://www.tuaw.com/2006/09/10/banner-for-september-12th-event/
Looks fake.
Is fake.
Discussion of fake iPod picture. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=232341)
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/2006/09/sept12pic.jpg
Source: http://www.tuaw.com/2006/09/10/banner-for-september-12th-event/
Looks fake.
Is fake.
Discussion of fake iPod picture. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=232341)
nastebu
Mar 29, 03:54 PM
Here is a good overviewnfor the extremely inefficient Japanese agricultural industry:
http://www.japan-101.com/government/rice_trade_policy.htm
There are strong parallels between this and other Japanese markets.
Unlike Americans, the Japanese would rather build everything in Japan and pay a higher cost for it (= inefficiency). (I live in Japan and am fluent in Japanese)
Well, the US spends 20 billion a year on agriculture subsidies as well, so we're in about the same boat. At least Japan uses agriculture subsidies to support small farmers. We use them to support DelMonte.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy
And as for the reason why Japanese spend more on Japanese products--that they are higher quality--if Japanese companies can convince Japanese consumers to spend more on domestically made products, why can't American companies do the same?
In general, Japanese made products *are* better. That's not inefficiency, that's good marketing and an educated consumer.
http://www.japan-101.com/government/rice_trade_policy.htm
There are strong parallels between this and other Japanese markets.
Unlike Americans, the Japanese would rather build everything in Japan and pay a higher cost for it (= inefficiency). (I live in Japan and am fluent in Japanese)
Well, the US spends 20 billion a year on agriculture subsidies as well, so we're in about the same boat. At least Japan uses agriculture subsidies to support small farmers. We use them to support DelMonte.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy
And as for the reason why Japanese spend more on Japanese products--that they are higher quality--if Japanese companies can convince Japanese consumers to spend more on domestically made products, why can't American companies do the same?
In general, Japanese made products *are* better. That's not inefficiency, that's good marketing and an educated consumer.
ECUpirate44
Apr 9, 08:36 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEMDAS#Mnemonics
(Not saying this is your case McGiord)
I am.
(Not saying this is your case McGiord)
I am.
RebelScum
Apr 20, 08:55 AM
Right or wrong the glass iphone will be forever associated with Antennagate.
Yeah that whole debacle really brought the company to its knees. :rolleyes:
Yeah that whole debacle really brought the company to its knees. :rolleyes:
Vantage Point
May 7, 04:55 PM
Well, I just bought it because I need to sync my computers. However, I do not believe Apple would do this for free :rolleyes: At $99/yr list price it is a lot but I wouldn't mind paying $25/year. Better yet, Apple should include it as a free service for those with Apple Care to leverage people into buying the extended service, For others, charge $25 - $50/year. Heck, we pay a premium for Apple products, they should throw us a bone every now and then.
asdf542
Mar 30, 05:59 PM
Enjoy your brand new 129$ Mac OS X latest revision (the most advanced, the most unique, the most... bla bla bla bla...) carrying more than XXX features (aka... just making the Mac OS X experience more iOS-alike so you get used to AppStore since soon you'll have to go through this method of delivery as there won't be any other one, because Mr. Jobs wants more money...)
Yep... I think that 129$ sounds quite ok, for nothing :D
Though I'm not surprise... there's nothing shocking that they can implement. This "update" is aimed at training people into AppStore (aka money)... and they even charge for it :D
I lol'd. No matter what people will complain. When Snow Leopard was released people wanted more UI changes and more features. Now when Lion is released all people want is under the hood improvements. SMH
Yep... I think that 129$ sounds quite ok, for nothing :D
Though I'm not surprise... there's nothing shocking that they can implement. This "update" is aimed at training people into AppStore (aka money)... and they even charge for it :D
I lol'd. No matter what people will complain. When Snow Leopard was released people wanted more UI changes and more features. Now when Lion is released all people want is under the hood improvements. SMH
bigwig
May 6, 04:26 AM
You could put a lot of ARM cores in the same space one x86 uses, and I think ARM is the superior ISA. Intel had a chance in Itanium to dump x86, but it was a half-hearted effort (current version arrived 3 years late and uses an obsolete 65nm process) and spent all their money improving x86. I have no doubt that Microsoft's refusal to support Itanium had something to do with it.
Intel's advantage is in its manufacturing, not its CPU design. x86 is a hack, but combine it with billions of dollars in semiconductor research and there's no way ARM competes with x86. Intel might fab ARM cores, but there's no way they let their best tech (22nm, 3D) be used on ARM unless they intend to dump Atom.
Intel's advantage is in its manufacturing, not its CPU design. x86 is a hack, but combine it with billions of dollars in semiconductor research and there's no way ARM competes with x86. Intel might fab ARM cores, but there's no way they let their best tech (22nm, 3D) be used on ARM unless they intend to dump Atom.
RCGMac
Mar 29, 10:07 AM
Can't store my music on my work machines.
Similar issue here. I have been hooking my phone to my computer to listen to music while at work. Now I can dump all my music into the cloud and listen.
Similar issue here. I have been hooking my phone to my computer to listen to music while at work. Now I can dump all my music into the cloud and listen.
No comments:
Post a Comment