Bilbo63
Apr 19, 06:03 PM
According to Wikipedia It was released in Feb before the iPhone was released..
The iPhone was revealed on January 9th 2007. It didn't ship until June due to regulatory approval.
The iPhone was revealed on January 9th 2007. It didn't ship until June due to regulatory approval.
dustinmagic
Mar 26, 03:46 AM
Golden Master candidate was supposed to have been released on Thursday. Will likely come out Monday. :apple:
Dagless
Aug 12, 05:43 AM
GT by Citro�n (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT_by_Citro�n).
Ooo I have that on GT PSP. Can't remember if it's a collectors edition bonus or whatever, but the ultra annoying thing (which I cannot wrap my head around why they would do this) is some cars cannot be transferred to the PS3 version of the game. Despite the PS3 version having the same cars and then some.
Ooo I have that on GT PSP. Can't remember if it's a collectors edition bonus or whatever, but the ultra annoying thing (which I cannot wrap my head around why they would do this) is some cars cannot be transferred to the PS3 version of the game. Despite the PS3 version having the same cars and then some.
safe4mx
Apr 7, 11:57 PM
Well that's pretty childish of both parties. :rolleyes:
Mattie Num Nums
Mar 31, 02:30 PM
How could you not see this coming. Even the most active anti-apple android fanboy/cheerleader could see that eventually it wouldn't work. Too many cooks in 'teh' kitchen trying to one up the competition whilst ruining the experience for the user.
I think everyone saw it. The question is what will Google do when they do publish the source code? All of these people pointing and laughing didn't read the article.
At least, that's what the Fandroids wanted us to believe when Android fragmentation started being tossed around as a problem. Where are those guys now that Google is actually acknowledging that it's a problem? :eek:
Not a problem for me. HTC does a great job keeping phones updated.
I think everyone saw it. The question is what will Google do when they do publish the source code? All of these people pointing and laughing didn't read the article.
At least, that's what the Fandroids wanted us to believe when Android fragmentation started being tossed around as a problem. Where are those guys now that Google is actually acknowledging that it's a problem? :eek:
Not a problem for me. HTC does a great job keeping phones updated.
rovex
Apr 12, 06:28 PM
Please explain this. You'd buy an iPhone 5 with HSPA+, but not one with LTE ? Why ? Makes no sense at all.
The coverage and cost obviously.
The coverage and cost obviously.
Multimedia
Jul 21, 12:20 PM
It really depends on your application.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
gorgeousninja
Mar 22, 10:10 PM
I do get a kick out of their 10.1" model being both thinner and lighter than the 9.7" Ipad2 though. That will undoubtedly have the apple apologists out en masse.
if you think 'getting a kick' from these points says anything remotely positive about your character...you'd be wrong.
if you think 'getting a kick' from these points says anything remotely positive about your character...you'd be wrong.
wtmcgee
Mar 26, 03:46 PM
Wouldn't surprise me if Lion and iOS 5 are one and the same... if that's the case, and since Apple really needs to get iOS in the 21st century, I can believe this...
So much hilarity in this comment.
So much hilarity in this comment.
NoSmokingBandit
Sep 1, 11:15 AM
Idk, that just doesnt sound right...
They have higher-res models from the GT4/GTPSP artists (everything 3d is made with super high poly counts then downgraded as the game's engine requires) so i dont understand why they would use the low poly models from GT4 when it would take just as much time to export a higher res model from Maya.
Time will tell i suppose, but it just doesnt make sense for them to gimp standard cars for no reason.
They have higher-res models from the GT4/GTPSP artists (everything 3d is made with super high poly counts then downgraded as the game's engine requires) so i dont understand why they would use the low poly models from GT4 when it would take just as much time to export a higher res model from Maya.
Time will tell i suppose, but it just doesnt make sense for them to gimp standard cars for no reason.
citizenzen
Mar 22, 09:39 PM
The UK and the US have put a freeze on Qaddafi assets three weeks ago.
One small step for man ...
Not resorting to war.
One giant leap for mankind.
One small step for man ...
Not resorting to war.
One giant leap for mankind.
Nuvi
Apr 11, 12:01 AM
Uh, iMovie was botched?
Yes, its crap. The first version followed the basic principles of NLE but the new version is pathetic.
However, Randy came up with FCP for Macromedia so he has what it takes if Jobs and other consumer oriented guys can keep their ***** away from the mix.
Yes, its crap. The first version followed the basic principles of NLE but the new version is pathetic.
However, Randy came up with FCP for Macromedia so he has what it takes if Jobs and other consumer oriented guys can keep their ***** away from the mix.
stormj
Aug 11, 01:41 PM
Here are some of the issues with the iPod phone.
In order to make the biggest splash, it will have to be available in both GSM and CDMA versions so that all of the big 4 carriers can use it. GSM is the international standard, so I'm sure they will have that *at least*.
In order for it to matter, it will have to be able to access the music store over the air. Have you tried downloading an MP3 file, even on an EDGE connection? It sucks.
The delay here has more to do with the networks. Until the 3G networks are fully rolled out (EV-DO on Verizon, UTMS on GSM, etc. etc.) and available beyond a few cities, this phone will just frustrate people. (Verizon's rollout has gone much further, but I would think given that CDMA is rare outside of the US that that fails to compensate for the fact that the GSM 3G is still in just a few markets.)
The latest rumor is that wide-spread UTMS roll out will be in Q1 2007. When that happens, we'll see an iPod phone. It's not as if Apple couldn't have made an Apple-rific phone by now. The limitation isn't theirs, it's the networks'.
In the meantime, you can get an HTC Tytn that will use 3G world wide and will play MediaPlayer... if you're into M$.
In order to make the biggest splash, it will have to be available in both GSM and CDMA versions so that all of the big 4 carriers can use it. GSM is the international standard, so I'm sure they will have that *at least*.
In order for it to matter, it will have to be able to access the music store over the air. Have you tried downloading an MP3 file, even on an EDGE connection? It sucks.
The delay here has more to do with the networks. Until the 3G networks are fully rolled out (EV-DO on Verizon, UTMS on GSM, etc. etc.) and available beyond a few cities, this phone will just frustrate people. (Verizon's rollout has gone much further, but I would think given that CDMA is rare outside of the US that that fails to compensate for the fact that the GSM 3G is still in just a few markets.)
The latest rumor is that wide-spread UTMS roll out will be in Q1 2007. When that happens, we'll see an iPod phone. It's not as if Apple couldn't have made an Apple-rific phone by now. The limitation isn't theirs, it's the networks'.
In the meantime, you can get an HTC Tytn that will use 3G world wide and will play MediaPlayer... if you're into M$.
maclaptop
Apr 12, 10:33 PM
I wouldn't worry. I have an insider source who assures me Apple is basing its entire iPhone 5 product launch on when your contract ends. Here's a direct quote from Steve Jobs:
"While the antenna issues forced us to accelerate our product cycle in favor of a redesign a year earlier than expected, and while the earthquake/tsunami disaster in Japan has added several of its own complications, rest assured that Apple will take every conceivable measure to ensure that the iPhone 5 ships at a time close to the end of mlmathews' 3Gs contract. We have been quite fortunate with the success of out iOS devices in recent years, but we're not about to start pushing our luck here."
You're right.
I have confirmation that the upcoming iPhone release date is Tuesday January 17, 2012.
"While the antenna issues forced us to accelerate our product cycle in favor of a redesign a year earlier than expected, and while the earthquake/tsunami disaster in Japan has added several of its own complications, rest assured that Apple will take every conceivable measure to ensure that the iPhone 5 ships at a time close to the end of mlmathews' 3Gs contract. We have been quite fortunate with the success of out iOS devices in recent years, but we're not about to start pushing our luck here."
You're right.
I have confirmation that the upcoming iPhone release date is Tuesday January 17, 2012.
tortoise
Aug 23, 03:04 PM
Do you have a reference showing that this translates to better performance in real-world application tests in a head to head competition?
Not handy, since a lot of this happened on mailing lists.
The short version is that the memory performance scales in a very sub-linear fashion as a function of the number of cores being used, whereas Opteron scalability is almost linear up to a large number of cores. The good news is that for single dual-core processors the memory performance is on par with dual-core Opterons and their in-cache performance can be better. The bad news is that this performance does not hold as you scale cores in a system. So for some applications (e.g. those that live mostly in cache) the Woodcrest processors will be mildly faster than Opterons, but for most the performance is about even in real app benchmarks.
I've seen fairly comprehensive benchmarks for both databases and scientific computing applications, both of which thoroughly exercise the memory subsystem. Even though a single Intel core theoretically has more bandwidth, the high latency means that the real bandwidth is about the same as the slower Opterons (which have real bandwidth that approaches theoretical) and the cross-sectional bandwidth of Opterons when you get up to 4 cores and higher is much higher since the scaling is almost linear with the number of cores. For Intel, I think it was the case that a bigger cache was a cheaper design choice than a truly scalable memory subsystem. As a result, they will have different competencies. Some types of floating point codes should run very well on Intel.
Not handy, since a lot of this happened on mailing lists.
The short version is that the memory performance scales in a very sub-linear fashion as a function of the number of cores being used, whereas Opteron scalability is almost linear up to a large number of cores. The good news is that for single dual-core processors the memory performance is on par with dual-core Opterons and their in-cache performance can be better. The bad news is that this performance does not hold as you scale cores in a system. So for some applications (e.g. those that live mostly in cache) the Woodcrest processors will be mildly faster than Opterons, but for most the performance is about even in real app benchmarks.
I've seen fairly comprehensive benchmarks for both databases and scientific computing applications, both of which thoroughly exercise the memory subsystem. Even though a single Intel core theoretically has more bandwidth, the high latency means that the real bandwidth is about the same as the slower Opterons (which have real bandwidth that approaches theoretical) and the cross-sectional bandwidth of Opterons when you get up to 4 cores and higher is much higher since the scaling is almost linear with the number of cores. For Intel, I think it was the case that a bigger cache was a cheaper design choice than a truly scalable memory subsystem. As a result, they will have different competencies. Some types of floating point codes should run very well on Intel.
bad03xtreme
Apr 25, 02:28 PM
I should have become a lawyer.
Dunepilot
Aug 11, 10:48 AM
I'm desperately in need of something to replace a buggered Palm Vx and a Sony Ericsson k750i. I've been looking at the Treo, but they're not easy to come by for Vodafone contract, if at all.
However, I can't see an Apple phone having much PDA functionality, no more than the iPod probably. It'll do something else, like VOIP, to differentiate itself, and have the smallest number of keys possible. Probably the number keys plus one or max two additional buttons.
I hope they do it, actually.
However, I can't see an Apple phone having much PDA functionality, no more than the iPod probably. It'll do something else, like VOIP, to differentiate itself, and have the smallest number of keys possible. Probably the number keys plus one or max two additional buttons.
I hope they do it, actually.
grue
Apr 12, 01:26 AM
Oh, and here's one I just ran into that reminds me:
Is it so much to ask to have it go to and from the background cleanly? Christ in a cartoon, you'd think backgrounding the application is a huge exercise in resource allocation by how long it takes to bring back all the windows sometimes, if they reappear at all. FCP is bad enough about this sometimes, but Compressor is even worse.
Minor, sure, but annoying as hell.
Is it so much to ask to have it go to and from the background cleanly? Christ in a cartoon, you'd think backgrounding the application is a huge exercise in resource allocation by how long it takes to bring back all the windows sometimes, if they reappear at all. FCP is bad enough about this sometimes, but Compressor is even worse.
Minor, sure, but annoying as hell.
tartufo
Apr 12, 08:27 AM
I am Sorry but I have to say something here. your ignorance amuses me.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 1, 04:17 AM
Your ignorance is staggering.
That's strange. I've never seen my ignorance stagger. I've always thought it couldn't walk. ;)
Seriously, please educate me, neko girl.
That's strange. I've never seen my ignorance stagger. I've always thought it couldn't walk. ;)
Seriously, please educate me, neko girl.
littleman23408
Dec 1, 02:25 PM
after trying out the nascar challenges: :confused:... honestly they should have rather spent their money on getting more recent street cars ... thanks for having 10+ premium nascar cars :rolleyes:
I wish they would have done without the nascar, but it's not to bad playing around with those kinds of races. Those cars are heavy and you sure can feel it when you race them!
I wish they would have done without the nascar, but it's not to bad playing around with those kinds of races. Those cars are heavy and you sure can feel it when you race them!
nagromme
Aug 7, 04:08 PM
I'm kinda bummed that even with Vista sneaking up that Aqua hasn't changed much.
Aqua is great and doesn't NEED to change much--it badly needs to be gone over for consistency, but it's already light years ahead of Vista in consistency, looks (MS loves clutter), and most importantly, functionality. Change for change's sake can be fun, but it can also get in the way.
That said, I think we haven't seen all the changes that next year will bring.
Anyway, Vista is not "sneaking up"... it still looks like a fiasco that nothing can save. It will sell well even so--that's a monopoly for you--but it doesn't threaten Tiger, much less Leopard (which we haven't even seen all of yet).
Aqua is great and doesn't NEED to change much--it badly needs to be gone over for consistency, but it's already light years ahead of Vista in consistency, looks (MS loves clutter), and most importantly, functionality. Change for change's sake can be fun, but it can also get in the way.
That said, I think we haven't seen all the changes that next year will bring.
Anyway, Vista is not "sneaking up"... it still looks like a fiasco that nothing can save. It will sell well even so--that's a monopoly for you--but it doesn't threaten Tiger, much less Leopard (which we haven't even seen all of yet).
BC2009
Apr 12, 05:42 PM
That is what the 49$ 3GS is for...
My buddy just got one the other day. Why cause it was 49 bucks...
and i got an HTC INspire for $20 that is better than my old 3GS
I think the $49 3Gs is AT&T's attempt to offer something that Verizon does not. Previous to Verizon getting the iPhone, the cheapest iPhone price was $99, and once the iPhone 5 comes out, I expect that there will no longer be a $49 iPhone option.
Offering a two-year old model at a discount is not what I call a deal -- and mind you -- I own a 32GB iPhone 3Gs while I am awaiting the iPhone 5. I love my iPhone 3Gs, but I would not advise anybody to buy one today with the iPhone 5 just around the corner.
Apple would do better creating a trendy newly-released iPhone-nano for a lower price and perhaps use iAd to help monetize it (the same way Amazon is doing with Kindle). Teens would much rather own a trendy new phone than a two-year old model that looks dated when held up next to its successor -- but that is just my guess at what the market would do -- I am certainly not all-knowing.
My buddy just got one the other day. Why cause it was 49 bucks...
and i got an HTC INspire for $20 that is better than my old 3GS
I think the $49 3Gs is AT&T's attempt to offer something that Verizon does not. Previous to Verizon getting the iPhone, the cheapest iPhone price was $99, and once the iPhone 5 comes out, I expect that there will no longer be a $49 iPhone option.
Offering a two-year old model at a discount is not what I call a deal -- and mind you -- I own a 32GB iPhone 3Gs while I am awaiting the iPhone 5. I love my iPhone 3Gs, but I would not advise anybody to buy one today with the iPhone 5 just around the corner.
Apple would do better creating a trendy newly-released iPhone-nano for a lower price and perhaps use iAd to help monetize it (the same way Amazon is doing with Kindle). Teens would much rather own a trendy new phone than a two-year old model that looks dated when held up next to its successor -- but that is just my guess at what the market would do -- I am certainly not all-knowing.
TangoCharlie
Jul 20, 11:40 AM
I have a question.
If Kentsfield is a relation of the Conroe part (ie. Core 2 Duo) then will it be capable of being configured in a pair to create a "octo" core machine?
Surely that will require a Xeon class processor (like a quad version of the Woodcrest)?
edit: quad version of Woodcrest is Clovertown.
Intel has for the last few years restricted the "destop" parts to single socket systems. ** If Intel continues along these lines, then Kentsfield will also be restricted to single socket systems (ie a maximum of 4 cores).
Cloverton, being the "Xeon" equivalent will support multi-socket systems, taking us to the quoted 8 cores for dual-cpu systems.
====
**The Pentium III S was the last "desktop" CPU which could be used in a dual cpu configuration. P4's were always "crippled" to work only in single-cpu systems.
If Kentsfield is a relation of the Conroe part (ie. Core 2 Duo) then will it be capable of being configured in a pair to create a "octo" core machine?
Surely that will require a Xeon class processor (like a quad version of the Woodcrest)?
edit: quad version of Woodcrest is Clovertown.
Intel has for the last few years restricted the "destop" parts to single socket systems. ** If Intel continues along these lines, then Kentsfield will also be restricted to single socket systems (ie a maximum of 4 cores).
Cloverton, being the "Xeon" equivalent will support multi-socket systems, taking us to the quoted 8 cores for dual-cpu systems.
====
**The Pentium III S was the last "desktop" CPU which could be used in a dual cpu configuration. P4's were always "crippled" to work only in single-cpu systems.
No comments:
Post a Comment