SevenInchScrew
Aug 10, 10:47 AM
Yamauchi helped design the GT-R i believe. Idk how much he contributed, but he had his hands in it.
No, Polyphony was contracted to help design the graphics and layout of the NAV screen and its various displays.
http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=46084&IsPgd=0
No, Polyphony was contracted to help design the graphics and layout of the NAV screen and its various displays.
http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=46084&IsPgd=0
0815
Apr 6, 02:34 PM
This can't be right. MR posters have assured me that the Xoom is better than the iPad. I mean, if you can't trust MR posters, whom can you trust?
Ballmer?
As someone who likes his Apple products, part of me laughs seeing numbers like this for the Xoom, but the other part thinks the same thing you post above--that Apple needs to have a successful competitor in the space to keep Apple's progress from stagnating. More competition will make them take bigger steps more quickly.
As long as SJ has some say he (and Apple) will follow his vision, not the competition (and this is a good thing) - the competition will follow Apple [Remember how Android Phone Prototypes looked like before the iPhone was out - just a copy of BlackBerry phones]
That's a common misreading of what Jobs said.
iOS was developed for the phone first, although its idea of using a touch UI was not.
As Jobs explained, there was a simple UI demo done on a touch device originally designed to be a keyboard input prototype. That demo gave him the idea to go all touch on the iPhone. That's what he meant by "the tablet came first".
Since we know that during summer/fall the first iPhone UI concepts were done using iPods with wheels, his touch "eureka" moment probably came in late with the UI demo almost certainly done under OSX.
According to all known histories, the actual creation of iOS didn't begin until 2006. Prior to that, some at Apple were still proposing using Linux for the phone OS.
Maybe it should be put in these words: iOS was designed for the iPhone with a tablet in mind ....
I didn't know the "proposing Linux" part, very interesting - do you have any links on this so that I can read up on it?
Ballmer?
As someone who likes his Apple products, part of me laughs seeing numbers like this for the Xoom, but the other part thinks the same thing you post above--that Apple needs to have a successful competitor in the space to keep Apple's progress from stagnating. More competition will make them take bigger steps more quickly.
As long as SJ has some say he (and Apple) will follow his vision, not the competition (and this is a good thing) - the competition will follow Apple [Remember how Android Phone Prototypes looked like before the iPhone was out - just a copy of BlackBerry phones]
That's a common misreading of what Jobs said.
iOS was developed for the phone first, although its idea of using a touch UI was not.
As Jobs explained, there was a simple UI demo done on a touch device originally designed to be a keyboard input prototype. That demo gave him the idea to go all touch on the iPhone. That's what he meant by "the tablet came first".
Since we know that during summer/fall the first iPhone UI concepts were done using iPods with wheels, his touch "eureka" moment probably came in late with the UI demo almost certainly done under OSX.
According to all known histories, the actual creation of iOS didn't begin until 2006. Prior to that, some at Apple were still proposing using Linux for the phone OS.
Maybe it should be put in these words: iOS was designed for the iPhone with a tablet in mind ....
I didn't know the "proposing Linux" part, very interesting - do you have any links on this so that I can read up on it?
craig jones
Sep 13, 01:10 PM
The OS takes advantage of the extra 4 cores already therefore its ahead of the technology curve, correct? Gee, no innovation here...please move along folks. :rolleyes:
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores. You think those fools (the same idiots who came up with Genuine Advantage) actually optimized their OS to run in an 8 core setup? Please pass along what you're smoking. :rolleyes:
How do you know these things? Is Windows' 64-bit support sketchier than OS X's? Of course not. OS X has little 64-bit support and none at all for Intel. Windows also supports far more than 2 or 4 cores (although there are license restrictions). Windows has run on far more than 8 cores for a long, long time. You realize they have an actual presence in the server market, don't you?
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores. You think those fools (the same idiots who came up with Genuine Advantage) actually optimized their OS to run in an 8 core setup? Please pass along what you're smoking. :rolleyes:
How do you know these things? Is Windows' 64-bit support sketchier than OS X's? Of course not. OS X has little 64-bit support and none at all for Intel. Windows also supports far more than 2 or 4 cores (although there are license restrictions). Windows has run on far more than 8 cores for a long, long time. You realize they have an actual presence in the server market, don't you?
Metatron
Nov 28, 11:38 PM
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
You my friend, sound like a socialist...
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
You my friend, sound like a socialist...
whatever
Nov 29, 12:42 PM
I'm certainly not on the record label's side on this, and I'm someone who almost never downloads anything online (not even free, MP3 of the week type tracks), but I think two important things we're glossing over are:
1 It is illegal to pirate music, regardless of whether or not a label gives their artists their fair share of profits.
2 Like it or not, most of the music on most people's portable music players is downloaded off of P2P. We "affluent" Mac users, who stay on the cutting edge of technology and come to places like MacRumors for heated exchanges about Apple news are not a typical cross section of music consumers.
I'd reckon most iPods are owned by the under 21 crowd, who've grown up with P2P as an ever-present option for music, and who swap songs with friends without thinking twice about it.
And as this generation gets older, things will only get worse for the labels, I figure.
On the other hand, at some point in time, this same generation will be in our courtrooms running the judicial system and in our capitol running our government, so it could be that some of these antiquated laws get modified for the digital age, but until then, refer back to Points 1 and 2 above and realize that despite how we may feel about the issue, it's illegal to download music freely and most people are doing it...
For starters, it's not illegal to download music freely. There are quite a few artists that allow free downloads of their music, so the first part of your statement "it's illegal to download music freely" is not correct. The second half of your statement ".... people are doing it....", assumes that everyone is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Which is wrong.
I've been re-thinking my stance here. And if Apple decides to give a portion of their future iPod revenue to the music industry, then let them. I personally would never do it, but again, we're only talking a couple of dollars per iPod. Would Apple raise their prices on current models, most likely not. I would rather have Apple pay the iPod tax, instead of changing the iTunes Music Store's pricing model.
1 It is illegal to pirate music, regardless of whether or not a label gives their artists their fair share of profits.
2 Like it or not, most of the music on most people's portable music players is downloaded off of P2P. We "affluent" Mac users, who stay on the cutting edge of technology and come to places like MacRumors for heated exchanges about Apple news are not a typical cross section of music consumers.
I'd reckon most iPods are owned by the under 21 crowd, who've grown up with P2P as an ever-present option for music, and who swap songs with friends without thinking twice about it.
And as this generation gets older, things will only get worse for the labels, I figure.
On the other hand, at some point in time, this same generation will be in our courtrooms running the judicial system and in our capitol running our government, so it could be that some of these antiquated laws get modified for the digital age, but until then, refer back to Points 1 and 2 above and realize that despite how we may feel about the issue, it's illegal to download music freely and most people are doing it...
For starters, it's not illegal to download music freely. There are quite a few artists that allow free downloads of their music, so the first part of your statement "it's illegal to download music freely" is not correct. The second half of your statement ".... people are doing it....", assumes that everyone is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Which is wrong.
I've been re-thinking my stance here. And if Apple decides to give a portion of their future iPod revenue to the music industry, then let them. I personally would never do it, but again, we're only talking a couple of dollars per iPod. Would Apple raise their prices on current models, most likely not. I would rather have Apple pay the iPod tax, instead of changing the iTunes Music Store's pricing model.
nikhsub1
Apr 7, 10:20 PM
Wow. I bought mine at Best Buy on opening day and they sold out of them. Why in anybody's right mind would best buy not sell what they have?
Obviously you know little about retail and accounting.
Obviously you know little about retail and accounting.
Krevnik
Apr 27, 09:19 AM
Are you somehow trying to imply that because the credit card company knows so much about you that it is OK to keep that information unencrypted on your phone and backup on your computer?
All people are asking for is that personal information is kept encrypted and secured. No more. No less.
Apple provides the option of encrypting your backups. I suggest that anyone concerned about the safety of their personal information use this feature.
Can you trust anyone to completely cover their bases correctly on this issue? Their "meh" data might be your "personal" data. The only way to be certain that the backups are encrypted is to encrypt the whole backup. Doesn't lengthen the time it takes much either, and you get to set the password to use/access the backup.
Yes, Apple made a bone-head move here. But there's a lot more personal information floating in the backups. SMS message history, 3rd party app data, etc. Not all of it is encrypted, and some of it you probably want encrypted.
All people are asking for is that personal information is kept encrypted and secured. No more. No less.
Apple provides the option of encrypting your backups. I suggest that anyone concerned about the safety of their personal information use this feature.
Can you trust anyone to completely cover their bases correctly on this issue? Their "meh" data might be your "personal" data. The only way to be certain that the backups are encrypted is to encrypt the whole backup. Doesn't lengthen the time it takes much either, and you get to set the password to use/access the backup.
Yes, Apple made a bone-head move here. But there's a lot more personal information floating in the backups. SMS message history, 3rd party app data, etc. Not all of it is encrypted, and some of it you probably want encrypted.
GuitarDTO
Mar 31, 07:47 PM
Polished like the pure Google, "optimized from the ground up for tablets" Honeycomb running on the XOOM right now?
Yikes.
No...polished like Android 2.2 vs. 1.0. I think my Droid had 2.0 when I got it, and just going from 2.0 to 2.1 to 2.2 they made huge strides. Google will get it right, and this is just another step towards that. Has iOS always had the polish that it has currently? (Asking honestly, I'm new to iPhone).
Yikes.
No...polished like Android 2.2 vs. 1.0. I think my Droid had 2.0 when I got it, and just going from 2.0 to 2.1 to 2.2 they made huge strides. Google will get it right, and this is just another step towards that. Has iOS always had the polish that it has currently? (Asking honestly, I'm new to iPhone).
MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 08:34 AM
It's the future, you know, soon the clock speed will be irrelevant and we'll be expressing processor speed in number of cores octocore, hexacore, tricontradicore, hexacontetracore, hecticosoctocore, and such and such
You mean its the future today? I thought it was next week! :D
You mean its the future today? I thought it was next week! :D
dpMacsmith
Jul 14, 03:54 PM
Amen to that. Especially when you look at the dell site and see that their tower with that same CPU costs about $2400.
This makes a nice discussion piece. But, I don't think that Apple will undercut the Dell price. My personal opinion is that the configurations are about right. But, the prices are too low. The table is bogus.
This makes a nice discussion piece. But, I don't think that Apple will undercut the Dell price. My personal opinion is that the configurations are about right. But, the prices are too low. The table is bogus.
fivepoint
Mar 17, 01:35 PM
Yeah I'm pretty sure I'm on his ignore list. lol
Lucky! I was, but he took me off.
Paul wants to shut down government. All that would be left is the few peace officers needed to protect business from millions of poor people.
Ultra FAIL fear mongering. Libertarian ≠ Anarchist. Small government ≠ no government. Limiting government with constitutional constraints ≠ destruction of government.
He's a common sense constitutional conservative, enemy of tyranny everywhere, and an unfailing defender of fundamental human liberty.
Lucky! I was, but he took me off.
Paul wants to shut down government. All that would be left is the few peace officers needed to protect business from millions of poor people.
Ultra FAIL fear mongering. Libertarian ≠ Anarchist. Small government ≠ no government. Limiting government with constitutional constraints ≠ destruction of government.
He's a common sense constitutional conservative, enemy of tyranny everywhere, and an unfailing defender of fundamental human liberty.
prady16
Aug 26, 04:13 PM
Yippee.....
Definitely buying a MBP asap.....not gonna wait for santa rosa!
Definitely buying a MBP asap.....not gonna wait for santa rosa!
Chris Bangle
Aug 11, 10:14 AM
We always have "next tuesday"
tumblebird
Nov 28, 11:30 PM
That Doug Morris is a slimeball. Who's to say I even own any Universal music. I listen to Indie, primarily. I buy all my music, most of it on CD which I digitize, or via the iTunes Music Store. Who is Universal to demand my dollar? Or three for that matter, one for each iPod I have purchased. There are a lot of labels out there. They can't all get a portion. Apple owes them NOTHING. Did they get music from Sony for the Walkman? How many of us listened to mix tapes from friends on those? I know that most of my tapes were mixes from records and CDs. Universal is off base and greedy. Don't let this happen, Mr. Steve Jobs! You're in the right.
janstett
Sep 13, 01:37 PM
The OS takes advantage of the extra 4 cores already therefore its ahead of the technology curve, correct? Gee, no innovation here...please move along folks. :rolleyes:
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores. You think those fools (the same idiots who came up with Genuine Advantage) actually optimized their OS to run in an 8 core setup? Please pass along what you're smoking. :rolleyes:
Sorry to burst your reality distortion field, but see my previous post. I ran a dual processor Pentium II NT setup ten years ago and Windows handled it just fine THEN -- back when Apple barely supported it with a hack to its cooperatively-multitasked OS and required specially written applications with special library support.
BTW my 2 year old Smithfield handles 4 processors fine (Dual Core Pentium Extreme with hyperthreading = 4 cores).
The only limit with Windows is they keep the low end XP home to 2 processors on the same die. There is probably an architectural limit on both OSX and XP and if it's not 8 it's 16. It's probably 8.
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores. You think those fools (the same idiots who came up with Genuine Advantage) actually optimized their OS to run in an 8 core setup? Please pass along what you're smoking. :rolleyes:
Sorry to burst your reality distortion field, but see my previous post. I ran a dual processor Pentium II NT setup ten years ago and Windows handled it just fine THEN -- back when Apple barely supported it with a hack to its cooperatively-multitasked OS and required specially written applications with special library support.
BTW my 2 year old Smithfield handles 4 processors fine (Dual Core Pentium Extreme with hyperthreading = 4 cores).
The only limit with Windows is they keep the low end XP home to 2 processors on the same die. There is probably an architectural limit on both OSX and XP and if it's not 8 it's 16. It's probably 8.
SuperCachetes
Mar 1, 06:41 AM
What absolute bollocks! Homosexuality does not need treatment, since it is not a disease.
It's amazing how the message can be impacted so much by where it is coming from. If leekohler would have said "I'm chronically gay," many of us might've gotten a chuckle out of it. ;)
It's amazing how the message can be impacted so much by where it is coming from. If leekohler would have said "I'm chronically gay," many of us might've gotten a chuckle out of it. ;)
Sean.Perrin
Jul 14, 10:54 PM
Not a chance in the near future. Blu Ray and Sony are in utter shambles right now.
Sony really is in shambles... what is wrong with that company? They've really lost any focus they might have had and some terrible ideas in have come and inevitably gone. (Will the PS3 be next?).
Sony really is in shambles... what is wrong with that company? They've really lost any focus they might have had and some terrible ideas in have come and inevitably gone. (Will the PS3 be next?).
Huntn
Aug 16, 10:20 AM
As I am newly familiar with Need For Sped: Shift. How would you guys compare the two games?
I don't know if it is my imagination but some of the racing demos I've tried, the cars seem to skid out of control relatively easily. I'm wondering if this is a characteristic of "realsim" in a racing game?
I don't know if it is my imagination but some of the racing demos I've tried, the cars seem to skid out of control relatively easily. I'm wondering if this is a characteristic of "realsim" in a racing game?
kdarling
Apr 6, 02:32 PM
As was pointed out by a previous poster, iOS was developed for tablet use.
That's a common misreading of what Jobs said.
iOS was developed for the phone first, although its idea of using a touch UI was not.
As Jobs explained, there was a simple UI demo done on a touch device originally designed to be a keyboard input prototype. That demo gave him the idea to go all touch on the iPhone. That's what he meant by "the tablet came first".
Since we know that during summer/fall the first iPhone UI concepts were done using iPods with wheels, his touch "eureka" moment probably came in late with the UI demo almost certainly done under OSX.
According to all known histories, the actual creation of iOS didn't begin until 2006. Prior to that, some at Apple were still proposing using Linux for the phone OS.
That's a common misreading of what Jobs said.
iOS was developed for the phone first, although its idea of using a touch UI was not.
As Jobs explained, there was a simple UI demo done on a touch device originally designed to be a keyboard input prototype. That demo gave him the idea to go all touch on the iPhone. That's what he meant by "the tablet came first".
Since we know that during summer/fall the first iPhone UI concepts were done using iPods with wheels, his touch "eureka" moment probably came in late with the UI demo almost certainly done under OSX.
According to all known histories, the actual creation of iOS didn't begin until 2006. Prior to that, some at Apple were still proposing using Linux for the phone OS.
ergle2
Sep 14, 10:49 PM
Really, completely new? As in, to Core 2 what the G5 was to G4? In just two years?? I guess they're really ramping things up... Core 3 Hexa Mac Pros, anyone?
Intel's stated plans as I understand them are thus:
A new micro-arch every 2 years. I don't think they mean brand new so much as "significant changes/improvements". Whether this is akin to Yonah->Conroe or Netburst->Conroe remains to be seen, but more like the former (or perhaps Pentium-M -> Merom -- Core Duo was very much a stop-gap). Little has been released about Nehalem, but at one time it was slated as "based on Banias/Dothan", due in 2005 and expected to ramp to 9/10GHz.
"Off" years will recieve derivative versions (e.g. Merom->Penryn), which appears to be mostly stuff like L2 cache increases, faster FSB speeds (at least while we have FSBs - 2008 looks like the year for DCI, finally), die shrinks, increasing the number of cores (expect at least one to be more cores on a single die instead of two dice/package), etc.
Die shrinks are currently scheduled for "off" years, in order to stablize the process ready for the new micro-arch in the following year so Intel doesn't need to deal with both new process and new arch at the same time, and presumably in part to keep speed increases coming in "off" years
Of course, roadmaps can change quite rapidly -- it's not that long ago that Whitfield was expected to debut late 2006 with DCI (FSB replacement). Whitfield was replaced by Tigerton which is now due sometime in 2007...
One thing's for sure, Intel appears to have learnt a great deal from the Netburst fiasco -- how not to do things, if nothing else. Unfortunately, they still estimate ~50% of processors shipping in 1Q2007 will be netburst-based (mostly Pentium-D).
Intel's stated plans as I understand them are thus:
A new micro-arch every 2 years. I don't think they mean brand new so much as "significant changes/improvements". Whether this is akin to Yonah->Conroe or Netburst->Conroe remains to be seen, but more like the former (or perhaps Pentium-M -> Merom -- Core Duo was very much a stop-gap). Little has been released about Nehalem, but at one time it was slated as "based on Banias/Dothan", due in 2005 and expected to ramp to 9/10GHz.
"Off" years will recieve derivative versions (e.g. Merom->Penryn), which appears to be mostly stuff like L2 cache increases, faster FSB speeds (at least while we have FSBs - 2008 looks like the year for DCI, finally), die shrinks, increasing the number of cores (expect at least one to be more cores on a single die instead of two dice/package), etc.
Die shrinks are currently scheduled for "off" years, in order to stablize the process ready for the new micro-arch in the following year so Intel doesn't need to deal with both new process and new arch at the same time, and presumably in part to keep speed increases coming in "off" years
Of course, roadmaps can change quite rapidly -- it's not that long ago that Whitfield was expected to debut late 2006 with DCI (FSB replacement). Whitfield was replaced by Tigerton which is now due sometime in 2007...
One thing's for sure, Intel appears to have learnt a great deal from the Netburst fiasco -- how not to do things, if nothing else. Unfortunately, they still estimate ~50% of processors shipping in 1Q2007 will be netburst-based (mostly Pentium-D).
MarkMS
Mar 31, 04:14 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.
Exactly! I've heard every single one of those arguments, except instead of a lemming ... I'm an iSheep!
And for those of you that add "customizing/theming" as a great feature to Android, please take a look at what your peers are proud of. http://fuglyandroid.tumblr.com/
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.
Exactly! I've heard every single one of those arguments, except instead of a lemming ... I'm an iSheep!
And for those of you that add "customizing/theming" as a great feature to Android, please take a look at what your peers are proud of. http://fuglyandroid.tumblr.com/
rjohnstone
Apr 25, 03:11 PM
While I would also like to know why, I'm not sure this is a big deal as it seems to me that the remedy to going to be very simple: a) encryption is on by default, and/or b) flushing the database after, say, six months.
Oh I agree, it's not as big a deal as some are making it out to be.
I would still like to know the "why" part. If anything just to satisfy my own curiosity.
Oh I agree, it's not as big a deal as some are making it out to be.
I would still like to know the "why" part. If anything just to satisfy my own curiosity.
Fredrick
Apr 25, 04:46 PM
Hear we go again, who ever filed the law suit, get a life. Lifes not all about trying to make money out of others, enjoy the product for what it is. And not from what you can make out of it!, and if your worried about being tracked, then you must be doing something wrong!!!!
shawnce
Aug 26, 03:25 PM
Apple is now getting their parts from the same bin that PC makers use. Intel = cheap parts. Cheap parts = low quality.
Same thing with the batteries....
OS X can run on PPC and X86. Apple should target X86 to consumers and PPC for pro's Yet iBooks and PowerBooks (PPC based systems) are part of this most recent battery recall (and a prior one)... it has nothing to do with switching to Intel. Apple has been using standard commodity parts in their systems for a VERY long time now.
...and while you are at the site why not look at some non-Intel based systems...
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=Titanium_PowerBook_G4
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=PowerBook_12%22
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=Ibook
Same thing with the batteries....
OS X can run on PPC and X86. Apple should target X86 to consumers and PPC for pro's Yet iBooks and PowerBooks (PPC based systems) are part of this most recent battery recall (and a prior one)... it has nothing to do with switching to Intel. Apple has been using standard commodity parts in their systems for a VERY long time now.
...and while you are at the site why not look at some non-Intel based systems...
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=Titanium_PowerBook_G4
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=PowerBook_12%22
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=Ibook
