janstett
Sep 15, 08:26 AM
And of course, NT started as a reimplementation of VMS for a failed Intel RISC CPU...
More pedantic details for those who are interested... :)
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
More pedantic details for those who are interested... :)
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
asiayeah
Aug 26, 11:44 AM
Im sorry, but when you recall 1.8million batteries, and expect them not to get over laoded with call, your crazy. Dell is making some people wait nearly 70 days to get their replacement. Its a LOT of batteries. Affecting a LOT of users. These things happen.
Because Apple customers care about Apple and they want the best and reasonable services from it. Unfortunately, this is not the current case.
I am sure most people agree that Apple's current way of handling the battery replacements leaves lots of rooms for improvements, particularly in non-US areas.
We also shouldn't feel good just because Dell also does not handle it too well. After all, Dell has more batteries to replace and has a shorter period of time for preparations. Supposingly, Dell provides bargain PCs, while Apple tends to charge a premium for their products. Can't Apple customers deserve better services? Shouldn't Apple be better? Should we all lower our expectations from Apple and ask for a cheaper price instead?
Because Apple customers care about Apple and they want the best and reasonable services from it. Unfortunately, this is not the current case.
I am sure most people agree that Apple's current way of handling the battery replacements leaves lots of rooms for improvements, particularly in non-US areas.
We also shouldn't feel good just because Dell also does not handle it too well. After all, Dell has more batteries to replace and has a shorter period of time for preparations. Supposingly, Dell provides bargain PCs, while Apple tends to charge a premium for their products. Can't Apple customers deserve better services? Shouldn't Apple be better? Should we all lower our expectations from Apple and ask for a cheaper price instead?
Blaze3555
Apr 10, 02:16 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Did any One catch the quote about the puck. For a split second I got exited because I thought it was Kevin Smith. I love his podcasts. Execp he talk about only using Avid because Fcp docent have a big enough time line. But Let's all go inside! Lol
Did any One catch the quote about the puck. For a split second I got exited because I thought it was Kevin Smith. I love his podcasts. Execp he talk about only using Avid because Fcp docent have a big enough time line. But Let's all go inside! Lol
mobilehavoc
Apr 6, 02:08 PM
And I guess it works both ways. If the iPad is a Honda, the Xoom is a Hyundai, or more and more of late, a Kia.
Just enjoy a device for what it is... these child-like torts are silly. Both are nice. The only true differentiating factor is the AppStore right now.
What bothers me is people think because an iPad sells more it is superior, unless you made the iPad or work at Apple I don't see how that makes sense. Also most people on here have never even played with a XOOM.
I own both an iPad2 (my wife's technically) and my XOOM. I had an iPad1 since launch until I sold it for a XOOM. For me, Apps are lacking on XOOM but it's made up for with the true tablet OS and excellent first party apps.
Find me a better GMail/Email, Maps, Browser on the iPad and other stuff you will actually use most often and I'll sell my XOOM. Since I've had my XOOM, I haven't touched the iPad2. Everytime I pick it up I miss using the XOOM.
Just enjoy a device for what it is... these child-like torts are silly. Both are nice. The only true differentiating factor is the AppStore right now.
What bothers me is people think because an iPad sells more it is superior, unless you made the iPad or work at Apple I don't see how that makes sense. Also most people on here have never even played with a XOOM.
I own both an iPad2 (my wife's technically) and my XOOM. I had an iPad1 since launch until I sold it for a XOOM. For me, Apps are lacking on XOOM but it's made up for with the true tablet OS and excellent first party apps.
Find me a better GMail/Email, Maps, Browser on the iPad and other stuff you will actually use most often and I'll sell my XOOM. Since I've had my XOOM, I haven't touched the iPad2. Everytime I pick it up I miss using the XOOM.
rawdigits
Sep 13, 08:57 AM
I guess I'll wait until Tigerton. I want to buy a merom MBP when it comes out.
The architecture of Tigerton is without the Frontside Bus. More in direction of AMD. Much more efficiency than put just 8 Cores to the 1.3 FSB. Clovertown alos has slower RAM.
:rolleyes:
The architecture of Tigerton is without the Frontside Bus. More in direction of AMD. Much more efficiency than put just 8 Cores to the 1.3 FSB. Clovertown alos has slower RAM.
:rolleyes:
BWhaler
Jul 14, 03:33 PM
I've never thought much of the relevance of its placement myself - why do you say that? Care to elaborate on why it is "REALLY stupid"?
1. Notice the power plug hole at the top? Now imagine a cord running out of it. Yup, there is a reason why Apple has put it at the bottom.
2. Top heavy.
1. Notice the power plug hole at the top? Now imagine a cord running out of it. Yup, there is a reason why Apple has put it at the bottom.
2. Top heavy.
matticus008
Nov 29, 06:13 AM
One wonders why it hasn't been used in a Court of Law.
Not really, though. There are countless ways of maneuvering around any such royalties, from framing it as an access toll to a deposit or anything in between. This added cost doesn't actually get you anywhere in litigation, most importantly because it in no way stipulates between you, the customer, and the label.
What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music.
Far from it. Each tax payer contributes to fund their local DMV, and yet their services aren't free. The state collects a tax on car sales, which goes in most cases to road improvement, police departments, and the DMV (along with a truly bizarre array of other causes), but it's only part of the cost. You also pay taxes to a general fund, which is distributed to agencies and services you may never use (or even be aware of). Contributing some money cannot be construed as contributing sufficient money here.
You also pay for car insurance which protects you in the event of an accident; intentionally putting yourself in an accident is insurance fraud. There's no such thing as "music fraud" (at least in this construction), but the result is a sort of piracy insurance policy for the label. Naturally, though, the labels claim such exorbitant losses and damages from piracy that even $1 per iPod would hardly dent that figure.
If this went into effect, I would have a defense in court when I downloaded the entire Universal Label Catalog (All Their Music) off the net.
If only it worked that way...
Just to be clear, this whole idea of collecting on music players is nothing short of outrageous. But it doesn't have the legal implications or weight that have been popularized here. They CAN have their cake and eat it, too, and they know it. That's why it's important for me to ensure that these false notions don't become ingrained as part of the Internet groupthink--when you step back into the real world, you'll be equally screwed, with or without this fee.
Not really, though. There are countless ways of maneuvering around any such royalties, from framing it as an access toll to a deposit or anything in between. This added cost doesn't actually get you anywhere in litigation, most importantly because it in no way stipulates between you, the customer, and the label.
What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music.
Far from it. Each tax payer contributes to fund their local DMV, and yet their services aren't free. The state collects a tax on car sales, which goes in most cases to road improvement, police departments, and the DMV (along with a truly bizarre array of other causes), but it's only part of the cost. You also pay taxes to a general fund, which is distributed to agencies and services you may never use (or even be aware of). Contributing some money cannot be construed as contributing sufficient money here.
You also pay for car insurance which protects you in the event of an accident; intentionally putting yourself in an accident is insurance fraud. There's no such thing as "music fraud" (at least in this construction), but the result is a sort of piracy insurance policy for the label. Naturally, though, the labels claim such exorbitant losses and damages from piracy that even $1 per iPod would hardly dent that figure.
If this went into effect, I would have a defense in court when I downloaded the entire Universal Label Catalog (All Their Music) off the net.
If only it worked that way...
Just to be clear, this whole idea of collecting on music players is nothing short of outrageous. But it doesn't have the legal implications or weight that have been popularized here. They CAN have their cake and eat it, too, and they know it. That's why it's important for me to ensure that these false notions don't become ingrained as part of the Internet groupthink--when you step back into the real world, you'll be equally screwed, with or without this fee.
ugp
Jun 22, 11:50 AM
My district here received their phones today...
Out of 68 PINs generated, only 11 phones were sent. Only to 4 stores and one of the stores that received the most phones did not even generate P any PINs. System was screwed up like I thought it would be with Radio Shack.
Out of the 11 phones 10 are 16GB and 1 32GB. The store that generated the most PINs did not receive any phones at all.
Anyone shocked... I know I am not being I worked for Radio Shack for 7 years.
Out of 68 PINs generated, only 11 phones were sent. Only to 4 stores and one of the stores that received the most phones did not even generate P any PINs. System was screwed up like I thought it would be with Radio Shack.
Out of the 11 phones 10 are 16GB and 1 32GB. The store that generated the most PINs did not receive any phones at all.
Anyone shocked... I know I am not being I worked for Radio Shack for 7 years.
chatin
Aug 18, 08:42 PM
From the time the Apple logo is displayed. There is a pause before that starts, I'd say only 10 seconds or so.
Full of Win
Mar 31, 07:19 PM
Exactly. What we need are more objective, balanced and rational sounding opinions like yours.
What he said was spot on. Gruber is the archetypical Apple sycophant, second only to Andy Ifatso from MacBreak Weekly.
What he said was spot on. Gruber is the archetypical Apple sycophant, second only to Andy Ifatso from MacBreak Weekly.
Iconoclysm
Apr 20, 04:19 PM
No they werent, what apple describes was already shows and build BEFORE iphone. If any apple basicly admits they copied it themselves and should get sued.
No, it wasn't shown before the iPhone, the F700 had a different interface when it was shown.
No, it wasn't shown before the iPhone, the F700 had a different interface when it was shown.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 19, 09:01 PM
I remember when the ipad 2 was announced. A samsung CEO said "we're going to have to rethink our copy of the ipad." Very innovative.
Object-X
Aug 26, 05:44 PM
Anyone know of benchmarks comparing the core duo with the core 2 duo?
Popeye206
Mar 31, 04:16 PM
And the Apple haters do yet another 180...
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
+1! Love this analogy!
You could also add to it:
1984-1991: GUI? Who needs a GUI? Real computers use command lines!
1999 - Vista: Thank goodness that Microsoft invented the GUI interface.
:D
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
+1! Love this analogy!
You could also add to it:
1984-1991: GUI? Who needs a GUI? Real computers use command lines!
1999 - Vista: Thank goodness that Microsoft invented the GUI interface.
:D
emotion
Jul 20, 08:45 AM
Back to reality: Apple wil use Xeon 51xx (5150 and 5160) in the MacPro, and Core 2 Duo (Merom) in the iMac and MBP to be announced at the WWDC. The top iMac config will get a boost to 2.33GHz. In addition, Apple will use the price-drops for the Yonah to upgrade the Core Solo mini to Core Duo.
I concur. Personally I'd like to see the MBs go to merom at some point relatively soon too but that's just wishful thinking as that's when I plan to get one.
I concur. Personally I'd like to see the MBs go to merom at some point relatively soon too but that's just wishful thinking as that's when I plan to get one.
KnightWRX
Apr 8, 08:37 PM
But Intel did not force Apple to use Intel's IGP, Apple could have added separate graphics chipset just as they did with the MBP. Which wouldn't really make sense on an MBA IMO.
Intel did indeed force Apple to use their IGP by not licensing other vendors to provide IGPs. The reason the MBP 13" and MBA 13" use IGPs and not dedicated GPU is one of space. Apple can't magically conjure up space on the logic board.
If I didn't already have an MBA and had the option between the current crop and the SB variant, I'd pick the SB without thinking twice about it and I doubt i'm in the minority.
I push the GPU more often than I push the CPU on my MBA. I doubt I'm in the minority, though I'm probably part of the minority that actual knows this little fact. ;)
No matter how much you try to spin this, Intel got greedy on this one and couldn't back their greed with competence. They have sucked at GPUs since they have been in the GPU game (Intel i740 anyone ?).
Intel did indeed force Apple to use their IGP by not licensing other vendors to provide IGPs. The reason the MBP 13" and MBA 13" use IGPs and not dedicated GPU is one of space. Apple can't magically conjure up space on the logic board.
If I didn't already have an MBA and had the option between the current crop and the SB variant, I'd pick the SB without thinking twice about it and I doubt i'm in the minority.
I push the GPU more often than I push the CPU on my MBA. I doubt I'm in the minority, though I'm probably part of the minority that actual knows this little fact. ;)
No matter how much you try to spin this, Intel got greedy on this one and couldn't back their greed with competence. They have sucked at GPUs since they have been in the GPU game (Intel i740 anyone ?).
bretm
Aug 17, 12:07 AM
Was there any doubt it wouldn't be a lot faster? I mean, I know it was already plenty fast, but come on...
But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
sjo
Aug 11, 04:09 PM
I have three subscriptions. Two in europe, one in US. How does that count?
Yeah, I've got several as well, if I spend more than two weeks in another country or visit there frequently I tend to get local subscription. Much more convenient to stay connected with the locals. This way I help more and more countries to get over the 100% treshold as well :rolleyes:
Yeah, I've got several as well, if I spend more than two weeks in another country or visit there frequently I tend to get local subscription. Much more convenient to stay connected with the locals. This way I help more and more countries to get over the 100% treshold as well :rolleyes:
Nym
Nov 29, 11:28 AM
I don't listen to anything that comes from that Universal Artists list shown above :)
So Universal Music Group must have received something in the region of $112 so far from Zune sales.
AHAHAHAHAHA
You my friend, sound like a socialist...
More like a Capitalist, he thinks they should get money, profit logic.
Universal is being greedy, they are entitled to 1$ per iPod the same way as I am, because after all, I'm advertising for Apple when I'm holding it in my hand right? It's just stupid beyond everything I've heard! And the artists will be the last ones to get even a glimpe of the money that M$ is gonna pay Universal (7$ ??).
If by any chance Apple would give in to Universal, every crap Record Label would start requiring the same fee and one day we'll have "the new iPod Nano, starting at 500$" :)
iPoop on Record Labels :D
So Universal Music Group must have received something in the region of $112 so far from Zune sales.
AHAHAHAHAHA
You my friend, sound like a socialist...
More like a Capitalist, he thinks they should get money, profit logic.
Universal is being greedy, they are entitled to 1$ per iPod the same way as I am, because after all, I'm advertising for Apple when I'm holding it in my hand right? It's just stupid beyond everything I've heard! And the artists will be the last ones to get even a glimpe of the money that M$ is gonna pay Universal (7$ ??).
If by any chance Apple would give in to Universal, every crap Record Label would start requiring the same fee and one day we'll have "the new iPod Nano, starting at 500$" :)
iPoop on Record Labels :D
gnasher729
Jul 20, 01:26 PM
But as some already pointed out, many applications can't use multiple cores, therefore you won't get any performance improvements with multi cores.
True, but many applications are fast enough on a single core, and applications that are not fast enough _will_ be modified when multiple processors are common.
True, but many applications are fast enough on a single core, and applications that are not fast enough _will_ be modified when multiple processors are common.
cbronfman
Apr 11, 06:35 PM
I'm with the other 3GS posters who hoped to be able to upgrade in June when our phones will be 2 years old (and showing their age for a tech product). I can wait until September (well, I'll have to as I don't want an iP4 which will be a year old by then). If something goes awry with my 3GS I'll have a problem as I don't want to be locked into a contract with AT&T buying a iP4 a year after it was released, and my iPhone 2G (original) has no GPS so some of the functionality I rely on will be gone). Maybe I'll schedule a genius bar check-up for my 3GS before my Apple Care expires. I don't expect LTE although it woudl be nice. I do hope for 3G+, dual core processor, improved antenna (although the signal strength on the IP4 is much stronger than on the 3GS) and thinner would be nice. I'd also really like it to be like the iPad2 with the GSM version able to work on other GSM networks by a quick change in SIM card and not locked to AT&T for those that travel a lot abroad or to Canada.
guzhogi
Nov 29, 01:16 PM
Just thought of something, maybe Apple could charge the record company for each song released by means of "Oh, you used a Mac to make this song. Give us this amount of money for each copy of the song you sell."
princealfie
Nov 29, 11:26 AM
I really don't harbor any hope that this could really be considered as royalty payment by the courts, it was just a little fantasy.
The real implication is on the moral front. You mentioned "group think" and I think that is the real danger for the record labels. If enough people were to convince themselves that the record label has grabbed enough money upfront, then they could step across the moral line that keeps them from piracy.
It's not law enforcement, or the actions of RIAA, that prevents the vast majority from crossing the line into piracy, it's their own built-in moral objection to it.
If the record labels remove this moral hurdle through their own actions, then there are not enough police officers, federal agencies, or private enforcement groups to even begin to stem the resulting piracy wave.
Uhhh... right. :eek:
The real implication is on the moral front. You mentioned "group think" and I think that is the real danger for the record labels. If enough people were to convince themselves that the record label has grabbed enough money upfront, then they could step across the moral line that keeps them from piracy.
It's not law enforcement, or the actions of RIAA, that prevents the vast majority from crossing the line into piracy, it's their own built-in moral objection to it.
If the record labels remove this moral hurdle through their own actions, then there are not enough police officers, federal agencies, or private enforcement groups to even begin to stem the resulting piracy wave.
Uhhh... right. :eek:
nsjoker
Aug 17, 01:41 AM
lol you mac folk and your photoshop :D
let's get some game benchmarks :rolleyes:
let's get some game benchmarks :rolleyes:
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar