kirk26
Aug 3, 12:00 PM
It's not scientific at all. No way in hell is it scientific. I should know, I'm a scientist, got a degree and everything.
I'm keeping this for my quote. Classic!
I'm keeping this for my quote. Classic!
cirus
Apr 24, 09:20 AM
3200x2000 requires 6,400,000 pixels. At 32 bit per pixel, we're talking 25,600,000 bytes of data. Considering modern framebuffers are double buffered, this requires 51,200,000 bytes of memory to hold. That fits into 48.82 MB of RAM. GPUs have had that much since ... hum... 2004 ? So we're good on framebuffer RAM.
Now, bandwidth. In order to refresh the screen 60 times, we need to push out those 25,600,000 pixels. That's going to require 11718 Mbps of bandwidth. Let's see... Display port 1.1a has 10.8 Gbps so it's a no go (though it could almost do it). If only there was a DP 1.2 spec that had a 21.6 Gbps cap... Oh wait there is. :D
So we're good on RAM and bandwidth. Now, what ATI family introduces DP 1.2 so that we can use this new standard ? Oh right, the Radeon HD 6000 series, AMD's current shipping tech! Now if only Apple would release some kind of support for these GPUs, like they did back in 10.6.7 ;) :
http://appleheadlines.com/2011/03/24/10-6-7-update-brings-native-graphic-acceleration-for-amd-5000-and-6000-series-video-cards/
So let's see if I got all of this right. We're good on RAM (have been for quite a few years). We're good on bandwidth for 60 hz 3200x2000 resolution. We're good on hardware (AMD 6000 series) and we're good on OS X support (with 10.6.7).
What exactly is missing here ? Oh right, a hardware refresh with said hardware included, which is probably a formality seeing all of these news and facts :cool:
I have a question.
Is 25,600,000 bytes (25.6 MB) x 60 Hz not equal to 1,536,000,000 bytes.
Correct me if I am wrong.
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/amd-radeon-hd-6000/hd-6990/Pages/amd-radeon-hd-6990-overview.aspx#3
Amd (ati) lists the desktop 6990 as having a maximum display output of 2560 x 1600 per display (with display port 1.2). Something is going to have to change on the hardware level.
My opinion: This will look amazing but 3D gaming is going to suck at that resolution and especially since an iMac will not be able to have a very good GPU since it cannot handle the heat. Of course they could design it so that the resolution could be brought down during gaming.
Now, bandwidth. In order to refresh the screen 60 times, we need to push out those 25,600,000 pixels. That's going to require 11718 Mbps of bandwidth. Let's see... Display port 1.1a has 10.8 Gbps so it's a no go (though it could almost do it). If only there was a DP 1.2 spec that had a 21.6 Gbps cap... Oh wait there is. :D
So we're good on RAM and bandwidth. Now, what ATI family introduces DP 1.2 so that we can use this new standard ? Oh right, the Radeon HD 6000 series, AMD's current shipping tech! Now if only Apple would release some kind of support for these GPUs, like they did back in 10.6.7 ;) :
http://appleheadlines.com/2011/03/24/10-6-7-update-brings-native-graphic-acceleration-for-amd-5000-and-6000-series-video-cards/
So let's see if I got all of this right. We're good on RAM (have been for quite a few years). We're good on bandwidth for 60 hz 3200x2000 resolution. We're good on hardware (AMD 6000 series) and we're good on OS X support (with 10.6.7).
What exactly is missing here ? Oh right, a hardware refresh with said hardware included, which is probably a formality seeing all of these news and facts :cool:
I have a question.
Is 25,600,000 bytes (25.6 MB) x 60 Hz not equal to 1,536,000,000 bytes.
Correct me if I am wrong.
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/amd-radeon-hd-6000/hd-6990/Pages/amd-radeon-hd-6990-overview.aspx#3
Amd (ati) lists the desktop 6990 as having a maximum display output of 2560 x 1600 per display (with display port 1.2). Something is going to have to change on the hardware level.
My opinion: This will look amazing but 3D gaming is going to suck at that resolution and especially since an iMac will not be able to have a very good GPU since it cannot handle the heat. Of course they could design it so that the resolution could be brought down during gaming.
Eldiablojoe
May 3, 01:47 PM
I'm excited about this new game approach, but it's going to require a lot more attention to detail than I'm normally accustomed. Can I be a Palladin??? :p
LightSpeed1
Mar 27, 03:58 PM
I think apple has even more of a lockdown on iOS 5 and because there are no leaks they are reporting delay.
NutsNGum
Mar 29, 04:21 PM
I say, shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out!
mrwilly123
Aug 12, 06:04 PM
The updated Books will not be a qualifying Mac for the Free iPod.
You're wrong. The promotion is for ANY mac before September 16, as Nuks said. They can't (and won't) change the terms of the promotion before it expires.
I'm planning to order a MBP and a nano right after Paris. If MBPs come out before Paris, I'm still going to wait to see if they revise the nano...that would make up for the 3 months of waiting to get the MBP.
You're wrong. The promotion is for ANY mac before September 16, as Nuks said. They can't (and won't) change the terms of the promotion before it expires.
I'm planning to order a MBP and a nano right after Paris. If MBPs come out before Paris, I'm still going to wait to see if they revise the nano...that would make up for the 3 months of waiting to get the MBP.
itcheroni
Apr 21, 12:50 AM
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.
Okay, but just for you, dude (when you disagree with me, we both can at least understand what we're disagreeing on. Other people here, well, it's just a waste of time. They start responding before even understanding my point). I guess I didn't make it clear earlier but my perspective on capital gains is in relation to inflation. If there were 100 widgets and 100 dollars, let's say the value of one widget was 1 dollar. If the central bank in charge of dollars decides to do some quantitative easing and increases the money supply to 200 dollars. This will lead to inflation with one widget valued at approximately 2 dollars. Now, why should one pay capital gains on this when, most likely, everything else costs more too. You didn't really receive any gain; the measurement of value (dollars) decreased.
For example, let's say there was a tax for getting taller. If the measurement of an inch or foot keeps decreasing, you will have to keep paying even though you're not getting taller.
Earlier I gave an example of the time between buying an apple and biting into it, likening it to cost basis and realized gain. We would find it ridiculous to pay a tax for any capital gain in the apple, but if I choose to save my money in gold until I use it, most people think I'm actually gaining something. If I were holding stock in a company that paid dividends, that might be different.
So from my perspective, the inflation (capital gain) itself is a tax, and we have to pay a tax for that tax. Right now, I don't believe the economy is really improving; the Fed is just creating enough inflation to improve the numbers. Stocks may be going up, but I think food prices are going up even faster. So what is the point of a capital gains on stocks if the proceeds from the sale nets you even less groceries than at the time of your cost basis? If a 1 ounce gold coin a hundred years ago buys you roughly the same today, what is the point of charging a capital gains? In this case, the coin would have gone from $20 to $1500, adding up to a capital gain of $1480. Sure, you could have save the $20 in cash instead of gold, but then you're "taxed" by inflation. Instead of paying your rent for several months, $20 will now buy you a haircut. Forget the "tax the rich" aspect of this; this makes it really difficult for poor people to save money because they are the ones most likely to save cash.
My concern is, how will we save our purchasing power? The government is actively decreasing the value of our money and anything we do to try and save our purchasing power is stripped away by taxes.
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.
Okay, but just for you, dude (when you disagree with me, we both can at least understand what we're disagreeing on. Other people here, well, it's just a waste of time. They start responding before even understanding my point). I guess I didn't make it clear earlier but my perspective on capital gains is in relation to inflation. If there were 100 widgets and 100 dollars, let's say the value of one widget was 1 dollar. If the central bank in charge of dollars decides to do some quantitative easing and increases the money supply to 200 dollars. This will lead to inflation with one widget valued at approximately 2 dollars. Now, why should one pay capital gains on this when, most likely, everything else costs more too. You didn't really receive any gain; the measurement of value (dollars) decreased.
For example, let's say there was a tax for getting taller. If the measurement of an inch or foot keeps decreasing, you will have to keep paying even though you're not getting taller.
Earlier I gave an example of the time between buying an apple and biting into it, likening it to cost basis and realized gain. We would find it ridiculous to pay a tax for any capital gain in the apple, but if I choose to save my money in gold until I use it, most people think I'm actually gaining something. If I were holding stock in a company that paid dividends, that might be different.
So from my perspective, the inflation (capital gain) itself is a tax, and we have to pay a tax for that tax. Right now, I don't believe the economy is really improving; the Fed is just creating enough inflation to improve the numbers. Stocks may be going up, but I think food prices are going up even faster. So what is the point of a capital gains on stocks if the proceeds from the sale nets you even less groceries than at the time of your cost basis? If a 1 ounce gold coin a hundred years ago buys you roughly the same today, what is the point of charging a capital gains? In this case, the coin would have gone from $20 to $1500, adding up to a capital gain of $1480. Sure, you could have save the $20 in cash instead of gold, but then you're "taxed" by inflation. Instead of paying your rent for several months, $20 will now buy you a haircut. Forget the "tax the rich" aspect of this; this makes it really difficult for poor people to save money because they are the ones most likely to save cash.
My concern is, how will we save our purchasing power? The government is actively decreasing the value of our money and anything we do to try and save our purchasing power is stripped away by taxes.
Icaras
May 4, 05:38 PM
The number of lazy, complacent, disorganized, people that "don't want a disc lying around, or "don't want to keep track of one, is just hilarious.
Or sad, depending on how you look at it.
I'm not surprised that Apple plans to distribute it this way, since it gives them one more reason to trumpet their "fantastic Mac App store". Yeah right.
Apple is dumbing down every step of the process.
How long before it will be "too much work" to sit in front of the computer?
Wow, what a great job to completely and unfairly judge people.
I consider myself OCD level organized. One of the reasons why I am so organized (more so than ever now) is because much of my media and software have transitioned to digital.
You have a very negative spin on Apple's approach. Instead of "dumbing down", I'll call it "simplifying", and I absolutely welcome the change.
Or sad, depending on how you look at it.
I'm not surprised that Apple plans to distribute it this way, since it gives them one more reason to trumpet their "fantastic Mac App store". Yeah right.
Apple is dumbing down every step of the process.
How long before it will be "too much work" to sit in front of the computer?
Wow, what a great job to completely and unfairly judge people.
I consider myself OCD level organized. One of the reasons why I am so organized (more so than ever now) is because much of my media and software have transitioned to digital.
You have a very negative spin on Apple's approach. Instead of "dumbing down", I'll call it "simplifying", and I absolutely welcome the change.
BruiserBear
Apr 5, 01:31 PM
Jailbreakers are funny.
macnews
Jul 21, 02:10 PM
Glad I didn't decide to buy a new MBP in June! I have plans to wait until after WWDC, but I think we might see a change in processor before than. I don't see moving to a newer Intel chip as being a "big" developer issue.
ChrisTX
Apr 20, 07:54 AM
Happy it is coming this year, that way the real update, iPhone6 can be released next year.
I'm as pleased as punch with my iPhone4, no need to upgrade until the geniuses at Apple open a book learn about a little thing called 4G speeds.
4G right now is a joke. More of a marketing gimmick as the 4g footprint in America is laughable at best. Not even sure about the rest of the globe. People want 4g only because they know 4 is a higher number than 3(Not because they really know the difference). Apple will add "4G" capability when it becomes the standard across the globe. I doubt they will do so to appease the small number of Americans that might actually have access to 4G.
I'm as pleased as punch with my iPhone4, no need to upgrade until the geniuses at Apple open a book learn about a little thing called 4G speeds.
4G right now is a joke. More of a marketing gimmick as the 4g footprint in America is laughable at best. Not even sure about the rest of the globe. People want 4g only because they know 4 is a higher number than 3(Not because they really know the difference). Apple will add "4G" capability when it becomes the standard across the globe. I doubt they will do so to appease the small number of Americans that might actually have access to 4G.
hob
Mar 27, 05:03 PM
Cloud based services will require mobile phone operators to change their pricing structures or see lots of dissapointed customers.
O2 UK - 24 month contract �35pm, right now = 1000 SMS's, 600 minutes, 500MB data. I'd far rather see 500SMS's, 300 minutes, 1.5GB data... but of course, the SMS and minutes cost them next to nothing vs. data costs...
O2 UK - 24 month contract �35pm, right now = 1000 SMS's, 600 minutes, 500MB data. I'd far rather see 500SMS's, 300 minutes, 1.5GB data... but of course, the SMS and minutes cost them next to nothing vs. data costs...
Stella
Apr 18, 04:24 PM
NO It's not, are you crazy. That looks horrid. iOS icons have unique look to them, placement is not patented. The look is.
The lawsuit goes after Samsung trying to replicate and confuse customers into thinking that it's an iPhone.
I said *conceptually* they are the same, they both share the same common properties and looks - i.e., grid, shortcuts, status bar etc ( as I pointed out ), yes, the placement it different - but that is irrelevent?
It doesn't matter if it looks 'horrid', thats an opinion - by today's standards OS9 looks 'horrid' - IMO.
The lawsuit goes after Samsung trying to replicate and confuse customers into thinking that it's an iPhone.
I said *conceptually* they are the same, they both share the same common properties and looks - i.e., grid, shortcuts, status bar etc ( as I pointed out ), yes, the placement it different - but that is irrelevent?
It doesn't matter if it looks 'horrid', thats an opinion - by today's standards OS9 looks 'horrid' - IMO.
lilo777
Apr 26, 04:36 PM
Is anybody truly surprised by this? Droid phones are on almost every single carrier and come in every price point (including free). There is essentially one iPhone that comes at a premium price. Its like figuring out that there are far more chevy's on the road than Mercedes. Not a surprise at all.
It would be nice to see the numbers broken out by phone and carrier costs. Those would be meaningful market share numbers.
Why would you use car analogy here? Obviously the better one is about Windows/Macs. And the end result is not so good for Macs - a niche OS with 4% of worldwide market share and lack of support from many major providers.
It would be nice to see the numbers broken out by phone and carrier costs. Those would be meaningful market share numbers.
Why would you use car analogy here? Obviously the better one is about Windows/Macs. And the end result is not so good for Macs - a niche OS with 4% of worldwide market share and lack of support from many major providers.
crees!
Aug 2, 11:38 AM
If you 'can't have cameras' dont use them. It doesnt matter if they are built in. And for people with dual monitors they will have... er... oh yeh two cameras :D You got it wrong. If you can't have cameras.. you CAN'T HAVE CAMERAS even if they're NOT being used. I work at a place where you can't have cellphones with cameras on the premises (i.e., the parking lot) let alone inside. Many companies with such policies will not buy displays because of such.
TMay
Apr 21, 03:46 PM
Having dug around in my Mac liberally over 4 years, I was surprised they didn't crunch down the design yet. It's got a lot of room in there. Though the sleds and space aren't unwelcome, there are ways to compact all that and still have a great machine which is easy to access.
Past dual processors required a lot of heat sink fin surface to keep the G5's (remember water cooling?) and later Xeon's cool while keeping the noise level down. Now with plentiful 2 1/2 inch form factor SSD's available, and 32nm Xeon's on the way, heat will be less of a problem, heat sinks can be less bulky and Apple can maintain low noise in a very desirable 3U package.
Thunderbolt eases the RAID requirements of pro's by offloading to third party products as well as enable improved peripheral connection.
Seems like a natural evolution to me. Hoping for Xeon E5-2600 octo but I'll take whatever arrives Q4.
Past dual processors required a lot of heat sink fin surface to keep the G5's (remember water cooling?) and later Xeon's cool while keeping the noise level down. Now with plentiful 2 1/2 inch form factor SSD's available, and 32nm Xeon's on the way, heat will be less of a problem, heat sinks can be less bulky and Apple can maintain low noise in a very desirable 3U package.
Thunderbolt eases the RAID requirements of pro's by offloading to third party products as well as enable improved peripheral connection.
Seems like a natural evolution to me. Hoping for Xeon E5-2600 octo but I'll take whatever arrives Q4.
mrkramer
Apr 16, 01:04 PM
And when money is in a bank, the bank can loan an entrepreneur money to start a business that hires people. If the money is invested, it will provide capital for a business to expand. If $1 dollar is consumed, one person can have a candy bar. If $1 is saved, $10 will go towards a small business that might provide a continual source of income and services for many people.
but if nobody spends to buy that small business's product, how will it survive? Yes you need some saving, but spending is equally important. What we should have done was saved while the economy was going good and we could afford to have that money sitting on the sides and now that the economy is bad we should be spending to restart it. Of course the Republicans were irresponsible with their spending under Bush so now we don't have that money we should have saved to fall back on.
but if nobody spends to buy that small business's product, how will it survive? Yes you need some saving, but spending is equally important. What we should have done was saved while the economy was going good and we could afford to have that money sitting on the sides and now that the economy is bad we should be spending to restart it. Of course the Republicans were irresponsible with their spending under Bush so now we don't have that money we should have saved to fall back on.
Wayfarer
Mar 30, 08:30 PM
iCal has been visually overhauled to look like the iPad version
Very nice! I feel iCal was looking rather bland and needed some oomph.
Very nice! I feel iCal was looking rather bland and needed some oomph.
arcite
Apr 7, 02:04 PM
They only need like ~100,000.
:p
:p
PCClone
Apr 26, 02:19 PM
And next week there will be a new survey that says the opposite. These reports are getting old. Must be a slow news day.
lucabrasi
Mar 30, 06:39 PM
Will this work on the 2011 mbp's?
The installer does not error out and seems to work... rebooting now
The installer does not error out and seems to work... rebooting now
Durendal
Nov 26, 12:44 PM
Not. Gonna. Happen. The tablet market is very small, and for good reason. Why use a tablet when a laptop fits the bill? Or a PDA? It's a glorified scribble toy. Apple's not going to try and grab such a miniscule market. There's no reason to even try.
108
Sep 11, 12:51 AM
Is this another example of success breeding contempt and arrogance? I think so. If Apple were on the skids (like before the iPod saved their greasy bacon), they'd be begging for anyone to attend their apparently exclusive product showcases.
Actually, no, I believe it's more along the lines of an example of success breeding lots and lots and lots of admiring / eager people who want to attend their exclusive product showcases, and their resorting to excluding some people to keep such events from turning into crazed circuses.
Besides, I mean, who really wants to go to such an event, anyway? I'd rather just read about it on internet forums like this.
Actually, no, I believe it's more along the lines of an example of success breeding lots and lots and lots of admiring / eager people who want to attend their exclusive product showcases, and their resorting to excluding some people to keep such events from turning into crazed circuses.
Besides, I mean, who really wants to go to such an event, anyway? I'd rather just read about it on internet forums like this.
ChrisNM
Apr 25, 09:56 AM
But keep in mind that the data might be wrong. I typed in my real name and it came up with me . . . but with details oddly wrong. Multiple accounts that could be me, but in each case with wrong data. I clearly have messed up some databases along the way (good).
I did the same thing. The site said I lived in a $1MM+ home. I wish!
I did the same thing. The site said I lived in a $1MM+ home. I wish!