godrifle
Mar 31, 10:50 AM
Just what I wanted to see.
Bye Bye UI Guidelines.
This is going to be huge for Mac OS X. UI Guidelines were great but could stagnant the look. The OS needs to look rich in colour.
Very happy with the change and the development.
Just my 2 cents.
Dear God! Eliminate the consistency that UI guidelines create and usability goes out the window. Net result - Mac OS X becomes no different than Window.
I'm hoping these are red herrings by Apple, because these are just ass ugly.
Bye Bye UI Guidelines.
This is going to be huge for Mac OS X. UI Guidelines were great but could stagnant the look. The OS needs to look rich in colour.
Very happy with the change and the development.
Just my 2 cents.
Dear God! Eliminate the consistency that UI guidelines create and usability goes out the window. Net result - Mac OS X becomes no different than Window.
I'm hoping these are red herrings by Apple, because these are just ass ugly.
rusty2192
Apr 9, 08:47 AM
Spent the day yesterday at Keeneland Race Track for opening day of its spring meet. I'll be heading back both today and tomorrow. I still have a ton of photos to sort through and process, so there should be more coming. I just wanted to get one up to set the mood :D
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5065/5602606471_c9db6d7ba1.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/48874590@N02/5602606471/)
IMG_3626 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/48874590@N02/5602606471/) by Rusty2192 (http://www.flickr.com/people/48874590@N02/), on Flickr
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5065/5602606471_c9db6d7ba1.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/48874590@N02/5602606471/)
IMG_3626 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/48874590@N02/5602606471/) by Rusty2192 (http://www.flickr.com/people/48874590@N02/), on Flickr
thetaylor13
Apr 11, 01:06 PM
Future is lookin pretty cool.
Not sure how Thunderbolt works, as I'm sure not everyone does yet. But is this a technology that can evolve on its own? As USB 2.0 and 3.0?
Not sure how Thunderbolt works, as I'm sure not everyone does yet. But is this a technology that can evolve on its own? As USB 2.0 and 3.0?
jtara
Apr 14, 11:14 AM
Interesting possibility. It would be extremely difficult to emulate a complete iOS device (custom ASICs and all). But Apple could emulate just enough ARM instructions to emulate an app that was compiled by Xcode & LLVM (which would limit the way ARM instructions were generated), and used only legal public iOS APIs (instead of emulating hardware and all the registers), which could be translated in Cocoa APIs to display on a Mac OS X machine.
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
more...
rayz
Aug 1, 11:55 AM
I agree that it should be cheaper. Tiger introduced a lot. And Panther introduced Expos�.
Actually, you know what I missed out?
SpotLight! .... :rolleyes:
Don't have any use for Expose, but I use Spotlight quite a bit.
I think Panther was hit or miss for those first few weeks. Some people had major problems, I didn't.
Panther was fine for me; if I'd stuck with that version, then I probably would have been OK.
OS X "Kernel Panics" are transparent :)
That's a neat trick, but it's still a crash. ... :)
For the record, I've had errors on both ends. XP ones have been a lot more annoying�for me at least.
OSX was my problem, which I did find surprising.
Actually, you know what I missed out?
SpotLight! .... :rolleyes:
Don't have any use for Expose, but I use Spotlight quite a bit.
I think Panther was hit or miss for those first few weeks. Some people had major problems, I didn't.
Panther was fine for me; if I'd stuck with that version, then I probably would have been OK.
OS X "Kernel Panics" are transparent :)
That's a neat trick, but it's still a crash. ... :)
For the record, I've had errors on both ends. XP ones have been a lot more annoying�for me at least.
OSX was my problem, which I did find surprising.
dethmaShine
Apr 25, 11:28 AM
Anyone want's to buy off of me? 27" base model; UK [hardly used; applecare until late 2013] for �1250. :|
Anyone?
Anyone?
more...
countach
Oct 23, 05:30 PM
What if Microsoft claims that the Mac firmware (which is software on a chip) is EFI and Apple is emulating BIOS and thus Windows is running in an emulated environment.
Don't underestimate the power of the Darkside!
edit: Unless with Vista the Mac can use the native EFI, uhm... Maybe the Darkside is not all that :)
EFI is not an emulation of bios.
Don't underestimate the power of the Darkside!
edit: Unless with Vista the Mac can use the native EFI, uhm... Maybe the Darkside is not all that :)
EFI is not an emulation of bios.
Abstract
Nov 24, 06:09 AM
http://g4tv.com/games/wii/63170/nba-jam/
http://files.g4tv.com/rimg_137x0/ImageDb3/240081_PROD/NBA-Jam.jpg
Boom-shakalaka!!!
http://files.g4tv.com/rimg_137x0/ImageDb3/240081_PROD/NBA-Jam.jpg
Boom-shakalaka!!!
more...
KnightWRX
Apr 16, 04:15 PM
Why would you need 64 bit for a MBA? To fly off those huge sample libraries that the processor would lock up over?
64 bit is only for massive memory allocations and a MBA doesn't even have the CPU to pull it off... :rolleyes:
Well, for starters, to prevent the damn year 2038 problem.
Seriously though, there are a few benefits of running in 64 bit mode even on older processors. memory mapped files for bigger files that would otherwise use up more than the 32 bit address space are now possible and 64 bit registers can speed up a few types of programs, even those that don't deal with very large datasets.
By your line of thinking, who needs 64 bit at all ? My 233 mhz UltraSparc II should have just been a 32bit processor. :rolleyes:
The plain fact is the C2D is a capable x86-64 processor, there's no good reason to hold it back with a 32 bit kernel.
64 bit is only for massive memory allocations and a MBA doesn't even have the CPU to pull it off... :rolleyes:
Well, for starters, to prevent the damn year 2038 problem.
Seriously though, there are a few benefits of running in 64 bit mode even on older processors. memory mapped files for bigger files that would otherwise use up more than the 32 bit address space are now possible and 64 bit registers can speed up a few types of programs, even those that don't deal with very large datasets.
By your line of thinking, who needs 64 bit at all ? My 233 mhz UltraSparc II should have just been a 32bit processor. :rolleyes:
The plain fact is the C2D is a capable x86-64 processor, there's no good reason to hold it back with a 32 bit kernel.
Sky Blue
Apr 15, 01:18 PM
Hope iCal has a de-uglify option.
more...
MacRumors
Apr 25, 11:22 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/25/apple-delaying-imac-orders-refresh-due-next-tuesday/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/25/122155-imacs_2010.jpg
%IMG_DESC_12%
more...
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
more...
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
more...
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/25/122155-imacs_2010.jpg
PlipPlop
Apr 12, 05:20 PM
Are you planning on pre-ordering your HTC sensation so you can avoid the masses of people lined up to buy it?
Not sure if your being sarcastic but HTC are very hard to get around the launch time in the UK. Anyway yes, I am going to. The HTC Desire was almost impossible to get for about a month around release over here in the UK because of the massive demand for it.
Not sure if your being sarcastic but HTC are very hard to get around the launch time in the UK. Anyway yes, I am going to. The HTC Desire was almost impossible to get for about a month around release over here in the UK because of the massive demand for it.
more...
Eldiablojoe
Apr 29, 04:03 PM
What a sad post.
Nice deflection. You've been on the offensive out of the gate in this game. I don't know what your h*rd-on is for me this game, but apparently I appear a good victim in your eyes. You've played these games a long time, and are a very good player, you know exactly how to tweak things to your advantage and this unusual hardball manner you're playing this game is telling.
Game play aside, I hope you're okay- in the offline world.
Nice deflection. You've been on the offensive out of the gate in this game. I don't know what your h*rd-on is for me this game, but apparently I appear a good victim in your eyes. You've played these games a long time, and are a very good player, you know exactly how to tweak things to your advantage and this unusual hardball manner you're playing this game is telling.
Game play aside, I hope you're okay- in the offline world.
Jason Beck
Apr 9, 09:41 PM
Those are some nice-looking jeans. I have no clue why, but my eyes were drawn there first. :D
Thanks, I couldn't stop complimenting her on them too lol.
Thanks, I couldn't stop complimenting her on them too lol.
more...
Miguel0019
Jul 27, 11:11 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Along with the recent encouraging 3Q 2006 financial results (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060719164004.shtml) from Apple on Wednesday, independent research firms Gartner and IDC have recently reported on 2Q 2006 market share (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07/20/marketshare/index.php) (via MacWorld). Both firms report solid gains from 1 year ago, with IDC reporting a jump from 4.4 to 4.8% U.S. Marketshare and Gartner reporting a jump from 4.3 to 4.6%, making the Mac maker the 4th largest maker of computers behind Dell (32%), HP (18.9%), and Gateway (6.2%).
This is the first reported gains in marketshare for Apple since the Intel transition, as last quarter saw minor losses (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060601164133.shtml). From last quarter, it appears as though Apple has gained an entire percentage point in market share (up from 3.5-3.6% 1Q 2006).
Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Mac_Marketshare_Increasing)
is that good or bad?
Along with the recent encouraging 3Q 2006 financial results (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060719164004.shtml) from Apple on Wednesday, independent research firms Gartner and IDC have recently reported on 2Q 2006 market share (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07/20/marketshare/index.php) (via MacWorld). Both firms report solid gains from 1 year ago, with IDC reporting a jump from 4.4 to 4.8% U.S. Marketshare and Gartner reporting a jump from 4.3 to 4.6%, making the Mac maker the 4th largest maker of computers behind Dell (32%), HP (18.9%), and Gateway (6.2%).
This is the first reported gains in marketshare for Apple since the Intel transition, as last quarter saw minor losses (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060601164133.shtml). From last quarter, it appears as though Apple has gained an entire percentage point in market share (up from 3.5-3.6% 1Q 2006).
Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Mac_Marketshare_Increasing)
is that good or bad?
Squonk
Oct 24, 09:31 AM
so...
5400/7200?
is the difference a big deal for audio/graphics work?
I do not have a practical answer for you, but I had a similar question when I was upgrading the HD in my powerbook - I wanted the fastest drive I could afford as this would give my PB the biggest performance boost. What I found out is that the 160GB 5400 perpendicular drives have about 90-95% the performance throughput of a non-perpendicular 7200 drive. The reason being that because the bit are perpendicular, the drive needs to rotate a shorter amount to read the same amount of data. I know at the microscopic size of the data on the drives this seems hard to believe, but logically, it makes sense to me. My PB is a screamer by comparison to the 4200 drive that was in there, which has not bearing to your question of course...
I suspect, that the 5400 160GB drive from Apple will have decent performance. Personally, I'm not impressed with the 4200 200GB offering, but for someone who needs more space and ultimate performance is not key, then this would be fine.
That all being said, I look forward to finding out the specs & models of the actual drives Apple is putting in the new MBP's before I'd put money down on one.
Cheers!
5400/7200?
is the difference a big deal for audio/graphics work?
I do not have a practical answer for you, but I had a similar question when I was upgrading the HD in my powerbook - I wanted the fastest drive I could afford as this would give my PB the biggest performance boost. What I found out is that the 160GB 5400 perpendicular drives have about 90-95% the performance throughput of a non-perpendicular 7200 drive. The reason being that because the bit are perpendicular, the drive needs to rotate a shorter amount to read the same amount of data. I know at the microscopic size of the data on the drives this seems hard to believe, but logically, it makes sense to me. My PB is a screamer by comparison to the 4200 drive that was in there, which has not bearing to your question of course...
I suspect, that the 5400 160GB drive from Apple will have decent performance. Personally, I'm not impressed with the 4200 200GB offering, but for someone who needs more space and ultimate performance is not key, then this would be fine.
That all being said, I look forward to finding out the specs & models of the actual drives Apple is putting in the new MBP's before I'd put money down on one.
Cheers!
more...
bruinsrme
Apr 28, 09:07 PM
In Boston, mostly everyone I know with an iPhone, including myself, uses a case. It's more surprising when you see someone NOT using a case.
I use a case so it doesn't get as damaged in my pocket, and in the event you drop the device, there may be some saving grace that it doesn't shatter the glass.
3 iPhones in brookline running naked.
Although we have a few bumpers and a variety of cases laying around
I use a case so it doesn't get as damaged in my pocket, and in the event you drop the device, there may be some saving grace that it doesn't shatter the glass.
3 iPhones in brookline running naked.
Although we have a few bumpers and a variety of cases laying around
WeegieMac
Apr 14, 02:01 PM
Does anyone know if the home sharing play count bug has been fixed? I'd upgrade if it has but if it hasn't I'll stick with my 4.3.1 jailbreak.
For those who don't know what I'm talking about there was a bug where home sharing to device was not updating song play counts in iTunes like it's suppose to.
It's not a bug.
You had to manually tick a box which counted Home Sharing play counts on the iTunes overall one.
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=275083&d=1299669590
For those who don't know what I'm talking about there was a bug where home sharing to device was not updating song play counts in iTunes like it's suppose to.
It's not a bug.
You had to manually tick a box which counted Home Sharing play counts on the iTunes overall one.
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=275083&d=1299669590
�algiris
Mar 31, 10:34 AM
Yuck.
iphone3gs16gb
Apr 22, 05:20 PM
This mock-up looks hideous...
andiwm2003
Oct 24, 07:52 AM
i knew i should have had a large salad for breakfast.
LegendKillerUK
Apr 22, 04:13 PM
Nope.avi
WildCowboy
Oct 18, 07:47 PM
Historical Mac shipments by quarter.
<snip>
Thanks for the chart...I always like to see stuff like this. But your 3Q and 4Q numbers for 2003 and 2004 looked a bit fishy, so I looked into it and made the corrections below for 2004. Don't know if there are any other errors.
1Q2000 - 1,377,000
2Q2000 - 1,043,000
3Q2000 - 1,016,000
4Q2000 - 1,122,000
1Q2001 - 659,000
2Q2001 - 751,000
3Q2001 - 827,000
4Q2001 - 850,000
1Q2002 - 659,000
2Q2002 - 813,000
3Q2002 - 808,000
4Q2002 - 734,000
1Q2003 - 743,000
2Q2003 - 711,000
3Q2003 - 771,000
4Q2003 - 787,000
1Q2004 - 743,000
2Q2004 - 749,000
3Q2004 - 876,000
4Q2004 - 836,000
1Q2005 - 1,046,000
2Q2005 - 1,070,000
3Q2005 - 1,182,000
4Q2005 - 1,236,000
1Q2006- 1,254,000
2Q2006- 1,112,000
3Q2006- 1,327,000
4Q2006 - 1,610,000
<snip>
Thanks for the chart...I always like to see stuff like this. But your 3Q and 4Q numbers for 2003 and 2004 looked a bit fishy, so I looked into it and made the corrections below for 2004. Don't know if there are any other errors.
1Q2000 - 1,377,000
2Q2000 - 1,043,000
3Q2000 - 1,016,000
4Q2000 - 1,122,000
1Q2001 - 659,000
2Q2001 - 751,000
3Q2001 - 827,000
4Q2001 - 850,000
1Q2002 - 659,000
2Q2002 - 813,000
3Q2002 - 808,000
4Q2002 - 734,000
1Q2003 - 743,000
2Q2003 - 711,000
3Q2003 - 771,000
4Q2003 - 787,000
1Q2004 - 743,000
2Q2004 - 749,000
3Q2004 - 876,000
4Q2004 - 836,000
1Q2005 - 1,046,000
2Q2005 - 1,070,000
3Q2005 - 1,182,000
4Q2005 - 1,236,000
1Q2006- 1,254,000
2Q2006- 1,112,000
3Q2006- 1,327,000
4Q2006 - 1,610,000
mrblah
Jul 26, 07:43 PM
A tower is more disirable to people who are new to computers because it looks like youre getting more for your money. Obviously this doesnt apply to everyone, and saying such sacrilige on a Mac forum is going to get a lot of strange looks since the audience would be part of the "not everyone" crowd. But if you actually look at what SELLS rather than what you think people want then youll see that towers are the most sought after among the people looking for maximum value rather than style. People dont care what their computers look like, if they did then why would Dell have such a big market share with their ass ugly cases? PC's arent a fashion statement, theyre a tool. PowerMacs are absurdly priced and will never make a dent in the market share, so those are only options for rich people or enthusiasts that are willing to pay such prices.
Regardless of anyones opinion on how perfect iMacs are for new computer users, new computer users dont see it that way. They want value and upgradability since that means even more value in the long run. They dont know if they are going to upgrade anything in the future, the fact is that they buy a computer THINKING they will. You cant expect these people to know what you know, or to know that Apple has better quality parts than Dell or HP, they look at things and see computers and thats it. Not Windows, not OSX, just computers with already high prices.
Regardless of anyones opinion on how perfect iMacs are for new computer users, new computer users dont see it that way. They want value and upgradability since that means even more value in the long run. They dont know if they are going to upgrade anything in the future, the fact is that they buy a computer THINKING they will. You cant expect these people to know what you know, or to know that Apple has better quality parts than Dell or HP, they look at things and see computers and thats it. Not Windows, not OSX, just computers with already high prices.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét