Small White Car
Apr 12, 10:14 PM
You realize that you'll be on Aperture 5 before you spend more money than just buying 3 outright. The upgrade from 2 to 3 cost more than just buying 3 on the app store.
Why do you want to spend more money?
If I buy Aperture 3, 4, and 5 on the app store I'll have spent $240.
Didn't it used to be $300 for 1 version? What did the upgrades cost? I feel like I'll be way past 5 before I break even.
Available on the App Store?!?
Seriously, this better come in a box.
I can't get this approved for use without probably buying it myself first, let alone using my own iTunes account, which brings up a whole lot of licensing issues at work. And before you say "create a iTunes account for work."... Tying the corporate credit card to a shared iTunes account? I'd have a better chance of having our CEO give me one of his Jaguars than that. Not to mention, IT would slaughter me for the amount of bandwidth I'd use in downloading it.
Yeah, our editing machines aren't even allowed to be on the internet.
Hopefully there's a way around this.
Why do you want to spend more money?
If I buy Aperture 3, 4, and 5 on the app store I'll have spent $240.
Didn't it used to be $300 for 1 version? What did the upgrades cost? I feel like I'll be way past 5 before I break even.
Available on the App Store?!?
Seriously, this better come in a box.
I can't get this approved for use without probably buying it myself first, let alone using my own iTunes account, which brings up a whole lot of licensing issues at work. And before you say "create a iTunes account for work."... Tying the corporate credit card to a shared iTunes account? I'd have a better chance of having our CEO give me one of his Jaguars than that. Not to mention, IT would slaughter me for the amount of bandwidth I'd use in downloading it.
Yeah, our editing machines aren't even allowed to be on the internet.
Hopefully there's a way around this.
cleanup
Nov 23, 10:06 PM
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=261567&stc=1&d=1290568599
X-rays and casting. It counts as a purchase.
Psht. I can get that up here for free.
X-rays and casting. It counts as a purchase.
Psht. I can get that up here for free.
iGav
Mar 4, 12:21 PM
Keeping weight down is all-important. Which is why I remain in love with the Lotus Elise. It proves that less weight fixes everything - better handling, acceleration, braking, fuel economy...of course in a hybrid, the battery pack is always the vexed question. Even the best batteries are still expensive and relatively heavy.
But even the Elise isn't immune, it's all relative of course, but it's gained roughly 170kg since the Series 1. :eek:
But along with aerodynamics... it's perhaps the most important factor in, as you say... handling, acceleration, braking, fuel economy... pretty much everything.
When you think how innovative a car like the Audi A2 was, I do find the lack of real progress over the last 12 years particularly sad. 10 years ago, the A2 was a sub 1000kg (sub 900kg in certain trim) proper 4 seater, its 3 cylinder TDI engine could easily achieve 70+mpg imp without even trying (according to Wiki 107.8 mpg & 140 mpg imp were also achieved).
The 1.2 TDI version emitted 81g/km CO2, featured Stop/Start, an Eco mode that disengaged the clutch when the accelerator was released to maximise free wheeling and was rated at 94mpg.
And this was 10 years ago...
In many ways, it's shameful today that we think that 60 or even 70mpg is somehow remarkable for a family car. :(
the Cruze diesel, which may be able to equal or exceed the new Jetta TDI's level of equipment, refinement and pricepoint.
But not the brand image... that could perhaps be the biggest stumbling block of all, it certainly is in Europe anyway.
Personally... I don't think GM have a clue, and that's one of the reasons why they got themselves into one almighty hell of a mess, and only time will tell if they can get themselves out of it. I'm still of the opinion that GM's decision to attempt to introduce Chevrolet into the European market will ultimately prove futile.
Here in the US, the sedan (saloon) is king, even on smaller cars like the Focus and Corolla. That is slowly beginning to change, but Americans still like three-box cars over hatchbacks. Personally I prefer hatchbacks and wagons, though larger cars still look good as sedans.
Have to say my preference is for saloons... occasionally an estate (particularly A4 & A6 allroads, also 159 Sportwagons, that sort of thing), hatches (the bigger ones anyway) & estates can/tend to be a little boomy in my experience. Saloons also often have better body rigidity too.
But even the Elise isn't immune, it's all relative of course, but it's gained roughly 170kg since the Series 1. :eek:
But along with aerodynamics... it's perhaps the most important factor in, as you say... handling, acceleration, braking, fuel economy... pretty much everything.
When you think how innovative a car like the Audi A2 was, I do find the lack of real progress over the last 12 years particularly sad. 10 years ago, the A2 was a sub 1000kg (sub 900kg in certain trim) proper 4 seater, its 3 cylinder TDI engine could easily achieve 70+mpg imp without even trying (according to Wiki 107.8 mpg & 140 mpg imp were also achieved).
The 1.2 TDI version emitted 81g/km CO2, featured Stop/Start, an Eco mode that disengaged the clutch when the accelerator was released to maximise free wheeling and was rated at 94mpg.
And this was 10 years ago...
In many ways, it's shameful today that we think that 60 or even 70mpg is somehow remarkable for a family car. :(
the Cruze diesel, which may be able to equal or exceed the new Jetta TDI's level of equipment, refinement and pricepoint.
But not the brand image... that could perhaps be the biggest stumbling block of all, it certainly is in Europe anyway.
Personally... I don't think GM have a clue, and that's one of the reasons why they got themselves into one almighty hell of a mess, and only time will tell if they can get themselves out of it. I'm still of the opinion that GM's decision to attempt to introduce Chevrolet into the European market will ultimately prove futile.
Here in the US, the sedan (saloon) is king, even on smaller cars like the Focus and Corolla. That is slowly beginning to change, but Americans still like three-box cars over hatchbacks. Personally I prefer hatchbacks and wagons, though larger cars still look good as sedans.
Have to say my preference is for saloons... occasionally an estate (particularly A4 & A6 allroads, also 159 Sportwagons, that sort of thing), hatches (the bigger ones anyway) & estates can/tend to be a little boomy in my experience. Saloons also often have better body rigidity too.
imac_japan
Mar 18, 08:41 AM
Please sign it !! For our sakes
http://www.petitiononline.com/rumi04/petition.html
Thanks
http://www.petitiononline.com/rumi04/petition.html
Thanks
aafuss1
Aug 7, 06:54 AM
[B]Leopard
-Native NTFS write
-Soltaire game as a dashboard widget
-PC-run Mac OS X, but only via virtualization
-Tabs in Finder and Safari be draggable, Dragon Drop style tabbed windows-like OS 9, and be easily recalled-bookmarks.
-Native NTFS write
-Soltaire game as a dashboard widget
-PC-run Mac OS X, but only via virtualization
-Tabs in Finder and Safari be draggable, Dragon Drop style tabbed windows-like OS 9, and be easily recalled-bookmarks.
iJohnHenry
Mar 1, 07:46 PM
Apparently the diesel Cruze tops out at 120 km/h (130ish mph);
Something amiss with your numbers.
130 mph is on the order of 210 kph.
120 kph is actually closer to 75 mph.
Something amiss with your numbers.
130 mph is on the order of 210 kph.
120 kph is actually closer to 75 mph.
Denarius
Mar 22, 03:50 PM
HAHA, if I lived in Europe I wouldn't want to leave that place, not to say that's where you are, but Europe is great. Not everyone is true, but a big understatement thus the millions of illegal immigrants and people constantly being killed trying to get here. Ahem, Mexico for one.
Oh I don't know, Britain attracts illegal immigrants like a turd attracts flies. The French get very annoyed about the number hanging around near the tunnel trying to sneak over.
Oh I don't know, Britain attracts illegal immigrants like a turd attracts flies. The French get very annoyed about the number hanging around near the tunnel trying to sneak over.
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:28 PM
iOS style multitasking features (benefits) are indeed in Lion.
Applications written for Lion can "suspend and resume" without having to "save and close" documents. The reason the little light below running apps on the Dock was removed is that "running" is now more of a decision between the App and OS -- not so much the user. (APP - "Am I idle right now? Can I resume from this point very quickly? If so, I'll just suspend myself till the user or an event wakes me back up. No need to burn RAM or CPU, the user won't even notice I'm not here.)
There is no reason with modern computer architecture for humans to do memory management by getting involved with which programs are actually physically in memory/active. We have 7200rpm SATA3 or SSD drives, multicore processors with Gigahertz speeds, and Gigabytes of RAM...
The way we interact with Multitasking in Windows 7 and OS X Snow Leopard is based on the hardware limitations imposed by 640K RAM, 4.7 Megahertz single core processor, and Floppy Disks. Apple took the first brave step away from that with iOS. It's good to see it moving forward in Lion.
So you're saying we should go back to Mac OS Classic cooperative multi-tasking ?
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
Applications written for Lion can "suspend and resume" without having to "save and close" documents. The reason the little light below running apps on the Dock was removed is that "running" is now more of a decision between the App and OS -- not so much the user. (APP - "Am I idle right now? Can I resume from this point very quickly? If so, I'll just suspend myself till the user or an event wakes me back up. No need to burn RAM or CPU, the user won't even notice I'm not here.)
There is no reason with modern computer architecture for humans to do memory management by getting involved with which programs are actually physically in memory/active. We have 7200rpm SATA3 or SSD drives, multicore processors with Gigahertz speeds, and Gigabytes of RAM...
The way we interact with Multitasking in Windows 7 and OS X Snow Leopard is based on the hardware limitations imposed by 640K RAM, 4.7 Megahertz single core processor, and Floppy Disks. Apple took the first brave step away from that with iOS. It's good to see it moving forward in Lion.
So you're saying we should go back to Mac OS Classic cooperative multi-tasking ?
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
torn
Sep 24, 08:33 AM
As a follow-up on the GripVue, note the notch to the right of the charging port. That's the unobstructed speaker...
http://www.belkin.com/images/product/F8Z657-C01_RND/FUL1_F8Z657-C01_RND.jpg
Also, note the colors on the "Tint" versions (Black, Clear (shown above), Royal Purple, Night Sky, and Taro). It's odd that the bright colors that Best Buy has (besides Night Sky) are not shown. They also have a "Metallic" line (Black, White, and Taro).
I've been waiting so long for this case :( Does anyone know when they're gonna release it?
http://www.belkin.com/images/product/F8Z657-C01_RND/FUL1_F8Z657-C01_RND.jpg
Also, note the colors on the "Tint" versions (Black, Clear (shown above), Royal Purple, Night Sky, and Taro). It's odd that the bright colors that Best Buy has (besides Night Sky) are not shown. They also have a "Metallic" line (Black, White, and Taro).
I've been waiting so long for this case :( Does anyone know when they're gonna release it?
KnightWRX
Apr 26, 02:14 PM
Your point is that you cannot find such a trademark as "app store" in the standard character format because "app store" is too general right? The other person posted that "pet store" would be a ridiculous example of this.
Ok fair enough. Pet store was registered in the stylized or design format.
But your basic argument against Apple is that they cannot use app store as a trademark in the broader text format because it is too general. But this is not the only example of such a thing.
If this is the case then Apple Store will be thrown out too. It is the same type of trademark. Two words, not one and not preceded by "the".
App Store
Apple Store
Is the Apple Store a store that sells Apple ? No. It's then not descriptive. Does someone in the business of selling Apples can say their "Lakeshore Apple Store" is an "Apple Store" since they do sell apples ? Yes, because trademarks are limited in the scope. Apple's trademark on "Apple Store" would only apply in a computer/software business sense, not to the larger sense of every other business/economic field.
Just like I could then open a shoe store and call it "Apple Store". Though that wouldn't make much sense, but whatever...
You define the lexicon of the overall society?
We've been over the whole App thing in the other threads, with many people finding references to App as far back as the 80s. Want to go through it again ? It has been part of the lexicon for quite a while, ever since Application has been around, it has basically been shortened to app.
Ok fair enough. Pet store was registered in the stylized or design format.
But your basic argument against Apple is that they cannot use app store as a trademark in the broader text format because it is too general. But this is not the only example of such a thing.
If this is the case then Apple Store will be thrown out too. It is the same type of trademark. Two words, not one and not preceded by "the".
App Store
Apple Store
Is the Apple Store a store that sells Apple ? No. It's then not descriptive. Does someone in the business of selling Apples can say their "Lakeshore Apple Store" is an "Apple Store" since they do sell apples ? Yes, because trademarks are limited in the scope. Apple's trademark on "Apple Store" would only apply in a computer/software business sense, not to the larger sense of every other business/economic field.
Just like I could then open a shoe store and call it "Apple Store". Though that wouldn't make much sense, but whatever...
You define the lexicon of the overall society?
We've been over the whole App thing in the other threads, with many people finding references to App as far back as the 80s. Want to go through it again ? It has been part of the lexicon for quite a while, ever since Application has been around, it has basically been shortened to app.
mum
Aug 7, 06:05 AM
Introducing Vista 2.0
No offense to Apple, but seriously. Is that the wittiest tag-line they can come up with for WWDC 2006? Gernot Poetsch shows that Apple has a lost its creative touch in his photoblog. To this, I just say, eh.
Heh, not only is that tag-line funny, but it's funny 'cause it's true. "Hasta la vista, vista"? That's great too. Paul's obviously irritated by it, and also annoyed by the fact that Apple marketshare is in fact growing, despite his disbelief in its ability ever to do so.
No offense to Apple, but seriously. Is that the wittiest tag-line they can come up with for WWDC 2006? Gernot Poetsch shows that Apple has a lost its creative touch in his photoblog. To this, I just say, eh.
Heh, not only is that tag-line funny, but it's funny 'cause it's true. "Hasta la vista, vista"? That's great too. Paul's obviously irritated by it, and also annoyed by the fact that Apple marketshare is in fact growing, despite his disbelief in its ability ever to do so.
Small White Car
Apr 12, 10:09 PM
Let's not forget that this is $299 for ALL YOUR MACS. (Up the the limit...4 or 5, I think?)
I had to buy 2 versions of the suite to edit on 2 Macs at once. Today, if that's all I need then my initial purchase price just went from $1,998 to $299. Anyone who says this is expensive is insane.
Yeah, the other apps will cost more but the point is that not everyone needs all of those. I sure wouldn't have bought all of them.
I had to buy 2 versions of the suite to edit on 2 Macs at once. Today, if that's all I need then my initial purchase price just went from $1,998 to $299. Anyone who says this is expensive is insane.
Yeah, the other apps will cost more but the point is that not everyone needs all of those. I sure wouldn't have bought all of them.
tkermit
Apr 3, 11:32 AM
Kind of interesting to now look back at Steve Jobs's introductory speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmG9jzCHtSQ) for Chiat/Day's 'Think Different' campaign, about core values and Apple's approach to marketing.
Veinticinco
Apr 3, 04:16 AM
Did anyone else thing that was a really bad advert? They hardly showed the product fully at all!
As I posted above, I thought it was awful. But not for the reason you're suggesting. Not the best way to rate an advert. They're not all show 'n tells. No need to be especially if your product has global brand recognition, and all about the experience.
Case in point...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ7CO8iFz-Q
As I posted above, I thought it was awful. But not for the reason you're suggesting. Not the best way to rate an advert. They're not all show 'n tells. No need to be especially if your product has global brand recognition, and all about the experience.
Case in point...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ7CO8iFz-Q
adroit
Nov 15, 11:25 AM
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
This is true, but there are still many many ways to optimize the multi-core processor that's not currently being use.
For example, I am waiting for a program to compile right now. Although I have a dual core on my computer, the compiler only compile one file at a time and usually takes about 10 min to do a full compile . If I have an 8 core computer with a multi-threaded compiler then I can cut the total time to jsut over a min + couple of seconds for linking time.
I think the main problem with muti-threading program is that it is difficult to implement, especially for coders who only knows high-level languages. Muti-threading in low-level program such as C is not easy but at least it is straight-forward. But trying to muti-thread high-level language such as VB or C# can get you into a big headace since everything is abstracted from the programmer. To do that, you need to get into unsafe code and call a bunch of DLLs, and it's easy to get memory leaks. Basically it can start to get very complicated, very quickly.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
This is true, but there are still many many ways to optimize the multi-core processor that's not currently being use.
For example, I am waiting for a program to compile right now. Although I have a dual core on my computer, the compiler only compile one file at a time and usually takes about 10 min to do a full compile . If I have an 8 core computer with a multi-threaded compiler then I can cut the total time to jsut over a min + couple of seconds for linking time.
I think the main problem with muti-threading program is that it is difficult to implement, especially for coders who only knows high-level languages. Muti-threading in low-level program such as C is not easy but at least it is straight-forward. But trying to muti-thread high-level language such as VB or C# can get you into a big headace since everything is abstracted from the programmer. To do that, you need to get into unsafe code and call a bunch of DLLs, and it's easy to get memory leaks. Basically it can start to get very complicated, very quickly.
Kingsly
Aug 7, 12:32 AM
Kingsly: I'll keep an eye out for you before the Keynote tomorrow. EDIT: Sorry -- just saw your other thread. Have fun visiting Cupertino!
Dang. I am sooo totally completely insanely disappointed that I wont be there tomorrow...
I even went to the info booth and tried to sweet talk my way into some comp tickets to the keynote... oh well. There's always MWSF 2007.
Dang. I am sooo totally completely insanely disappointed that I wont be there tomorrow...
I even went to the info booth and tried to sweet talk my way into some comp tickets to the keynote... oh well. There's always MWSF 2007.
gnasher729
Nov 15, 09:53 AM
I wonder how Handbrake, iDVD encoding, or Quicktime encoding will take advantage of the extra cores?
For some time, Handbrake didn't use more than two cores - owners of Quad G5s reported CPU usage of exactly 50 percent, then someone changed it and Quad G5s reported 100 percent CPU usage.
What we don't know: Was the code changed to use up to four processors, or as many processors as are available? Developers are usually very unwilling to ship code that they haven't been able to try out, so expect a version using eight cores about two days after the developers have access to an eight core machine.
In the case of Handbrake, encoding to MPEG4 seems already limited by the speed of the DVD drive; you can't encode faster than you can read from the DVD. H.264 is still limited by processor speed. Using eight cores is not too difficult; for example, if you encode 60 minutes of video, just give 7 1/2 minutes to each core.
For some time, Handbrake didn't use more than two cores - owners of Quad G5s reported CPU usage of exactly 50 percent, then someone changed it and Quad G5s reported 100 percent CPU usage.
What we don't know: Was the code changed to use up to four processors, or as many processors as are available? Developers are usually very unwilling to ship code that they haven't been able to try out, so expect a version using eight cores about two days after the developers have access to an eight core machine.
In the case of Handbrake, encoding to MPEG4 seems already limited by the speed of the DVD drive; you can't encode faster than you can read from the DVD. H.264 is still limited by processor speed. Using eight cores is not too difficult; for example, if you encode 60 minutes of video, just give 7 1/2 minutes to each core.
Eraserhead
Nov 28, 11:23 AM
I remember playing on an XBox soon after it came out, it had Halo and a Hard drive, which made it better hardware-wise than the PS2 and it had a really good exclusive game (though GTA which is on the PS2 is better). So I don't think the XBox was too bad really. I don't think comparisons can be made with the Zune this time.
AvSRoCkCO1067
Aug 24, 05:43 PM
I hope it happens soon......that new iMac is sounding nice!!! I think it is obviously coming "VERY SOON." What happened to September 5th? Is that the tuesday after labor day, I think it is....
This article refers to the Mac Mini, not the iMac...
This article refers to the Mac Mini, not the iMac...
andrewbecks
Apr 19, 11:38 PM
While technically correct, you should provide context.
While SSDs DO have a finite number of write available, an SSD that's 256 GB (a modest drive size) with 10,000 writes = 2,560,000 GB of writing capacity (or 2.56 * 10^6 ;))
That means you could write 100 GB of data PER DAY for slightly over 70 YEARS!
Feel free to be amazed. :D
That is amazing. Thanks for putting that whole issue into context. I imagine that, all things considered, some SSDs might even last longer than traditional hard drives. How if we can just bring the price down! :-)
While SSDs DO have a finite number of write available, an SSD that's 256 GB (a modest drive size) with 10,000 writes = 2,560,000 GB of writing capacity (or 2.56 * 10^6 ;))
That means you could write 100 GB of data PER DAY for slightly over 70 YEARS!
Feel free to be amazed. :D
That is amazing. Thanks for putting that whole issue into context. I imagine that, all things considered, some SSDs might even last longer than traditional hard drives. How if we can just bring the price down! :-)
Al Coholic
Apr 21, 06:34 PM
Apple sucks positioning data from our phones, potentially violates untold laws and their stock goes up 8 points.
Freaking amazing. Only Apple.
LOL!
Freaking amazing. Only Apple.
LOL!
nicksoper
Oct 23, 11:03 AM
I've been waiting for my 17 inch macbook pro for months now, and it's finnaly due to arrive on Monday. (Getting it from UK to South Africa without it getting stolen is a big problem I've had)
So I'll be gutted if they release new one, but I'm working on the old 1ghz G4 powerbook, so I'm going to be flying anyway! With or without the extra odd 20% speed of the core2 duo.....
Perhaps there will be the case re-design though, that would be nice.
So I'll be gutted if they release new one, but I'm working on the old 1ghz G4 powerbook, so I'm going to be flying anyway! With or without the extra odd 20% speed of the core2 duo.....
Perhaps there will be the case re-design though, that would be nice.
heffemonkeyman
Sep 6, 08:11 PM
Too expensive if you ask me. In the cinema I pay $2 for a not so new movie (1/2 year old?), indie stuff/classics/etc. costs $4, new big movies $5.
What planet are you on?
What planet are you on?
termite
Nov 15, 11:23 AM
My Wife and I each have a ton-o-spam to process, and leave our Mail.apps open all the time. Mail.app uses up a full core for a few minutes at a time (G5 2.0GHz). So occasionally the computer is fully loaded just from the suckiness of Mail.app. It's very distruptive to doing anything else on the computer -- watching videos becomes very pretty much impossible. The kids sometimes leave their Safaris pointed at some flashy website which, between the two kids, takes another half-core.
Eight cores makes me think seriously of upgrading.
Eight cores makes me think seriously of upgrading.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment