firewood
Apr 18, 12:29 AM
So for .17 GHz upgrade we are sacrificing around 30% graphic power?
The i5 can retire more instructions per clock cycle, and so could actually run real software faster at even a lower GHz clock speed than a C2D.
The i5 can retire more instructions per clock cycle, and so could actually run real software faster at even a lower GHz clock speed than a C2D.
topgunn
Jul 24, 03:18 PM
I really hope that this mouse can better distinguish between a right and left click than the wired MM.
zombierunner
Apr 26, 08:12 AM
Nu Eye Max
New iMacs
New iMacs
bloodycape
Jul 12, 03:10 AM
Hell, the iPod could have a camera as well! if they can put video-cameras on phones, is there any reason why iPod couldn't have one?
There is a few pmp/mp3 player devices out currently with a camera. There is the Archos Gmini 402CC. The camera quality is a little better than what you get on a normal 1megapixel camera phone and video isn't bad either. Then their is those host of video players that support web/backup camera type cameras via av-ports. So a camera ipod is possible or an accessory to add a camera/video support but it will be kind of a useless feature.
There is a few pmp/mp3 player devices out currently with a camera. There is the Archos Gmini 402CC. The camera quality is a little better than what you get on a normal 1megapixel camera phone and video isn't bad either. Then their is those host of video players that support web/backup camera type cameras via av-ports. So a camera ipod is possible or an accessory to add a camera/video support but it will be kind of a useless feature.
more...
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.
peapody
Jan 28, 01:26 PM
You can't hack a DS Lite.
:p
But really, I want that jerky, it looks yum.
Lol I pretty much killed that whole bag in one day. $9 in my belly!
Picked up a 32gb Transcend Class 10 SDHC for the hp mini. $50 is not bad for all that extra storage space.
:p
But really, I want that jerky, it looks yum.
Lol I pretty much killed that whole bag in one day. $9 in my belly!
Picked up a 32gb Transcend Class 10 SDHC for the hp mini. $50 is not bad for all that extra storage space.
more...
chris975d
Apr 28, 04:30 PM
I can tell you from first hand experience many of the knock off conversion kits have a slightly thicker battery door which causes issues with certain cases - mostly hard ones, like snap on back covers or sliders.
They simply don't fit. They're just a hair off due to the thicker door.
I've also seen some white doors which are fine and fit with all cases.
Not saying these pics aren't of the Apple iPhone 4 or not......
Agreed. This is what I was saying (or trying to) in my earlier post. That many of the existing replacement backplates out there are just ever so slightly thicker than the stock black battery door, and therefore mess up the fit of quite a few cases. I know most of the aluminum "sandwich" design cases I use (where front and back pieces screw together) won't fit at all if the battery door is even a hair thicker, due to the precise measurements those cases are made to.
They simply don't fit. They're just a hair off due to the thicker door.
I've also seen some white doors which are fine and fit with all cases.
Not saying these pics aren't of the Apple iPhone 4 or not......
Agreed. This is what I was saying (or trying to) in my earlier post. That many of the existing replacement backplates out there are just ever so slightly thicker than the stock black battery door, and therefore mess up the fit of quite a few cases. I know most of the aluminum "sandwich" design cases I use (where front and back pieces screw together) won't fit at all if the battery door is even a hair thicker, due to the precise measurements those cases are made to.
ciTiger
May 3, 07:49 AM
Nice refresh, and the prices are very nice also!
Not that I really care about iMac but now we look at the MBA and MB refresh!
Not that I really care about iMac but now we look at the MBA and MB refresh!
more...
logandzwon
May 4, 07:39 AM
The only thing that sucks about this timing change is that my iPhone 4 won't still be under Apple's free 1yr warranty when I re-sell it to buy an iPhone 5.
same here.
same here.
cmaier
Apr 21, 10:59 PM
The US courts are pro Apple.
um. Huh? They don't seem to be winning much in the U.S. What is the source of your conjecture?
um. Huh? They don't seem to be winning much in the U.S. What is the source of your conjecture?
more...
sparkomatic
Mar 16, 09:21 AM
Good luck guys! Hope you all walk away with something!
I know if I weren't lucky enough to have gotten one on launch day, I'd be out there burning time off and sneaking around trying to get in line as well.
I know if I weren't lucky enough to have gotten one on launch day, I'd be out there burning time off and sneaking around trying to get in line as well.
MooVitZ
Aug 15, 07:39 PM
� Battery Meter (http://images.macrumors.com/downloads/batterymeter.png).
Is anyone else bothered by the button to buy more batteries?
Is anyone else bothered by the button to buy more batteries?
more...
mrfoof82
May 3, 07:46 AM
No 512GB SSD option. I would've gladly paid the premium for it (+$1200 instead of +$750), considering how much of a PITA it is to get at that (full logic board removal).
Choosing any SSD brings shipping time up from 1-3 days to 4-6 weeks.
Choosing any SSD brings shipping time up from 1-3 days to 4-6 weeks.
andys53
Apr 22, 10:38 AM
Have you used a 4.3" phone. They don't seem that much physically bigger but the screen size is awesome! Apple keeps getting squeezed with adding new technology because of the size limitations of the phone. Giving us a slightly bigger size with the advantage of a bigger screen size AND more components seems like an excellent tradeoff.
Yeah - I know if will never happen because SJ is compulsive obsessive with never making things bigger.
Tony
The current size is more than adequate for me, and I use reading glasses! The screen could possibly be increased I suppose if the black areas were somehow shrunk, but unless your hands are like shovels the phones already big enough.
Yeah - I know if will never happen because SJ is compulsive obsessive with never making things bigger.
Tony
The current size is more than adequate for me, and I use reading glasses! The screen could possibly be increased I suppose if the black areas were somehow shrunk, but unless your hands are like shovels the phones already big enough.
more...
macFanDave
Jul 21, 02:44 PM
They're behind Gateway in number of units shipped. Gateway produces and ships more units than Apple.
Michael, read shawnce's message #61. It's exactly how I wanted to reply to your statement, only better.
About market share, there is an optimal level, I believe. Too low and the issue of third-party applications and peripherals becomes a problem. However, if Apple's marketshare gets too high, there could be some anti-trust problems.
Let's face it: Apple is a monopoly, but with such a small market share, it is a monopoly that we have freely chosen to deal with. We Mac consumers cannot go to the DOJ and claim we have no alternatives (just because your alternatives suck doesn't mean you don't have them.) If Apple were wildly successful and exceeded this threshold market share, their business model may be interfered with by the government.
10% should be far below that threshold.
Michael, read shawnce's message #61. It's exactly how I wanted to reply to your statement, only better.
About market share, there is an optimal level, I believe. Too low and the issue of third-party applications and peripherals becomes a problem. However, if Apple's marketshare gets too high, there could be some anti-trust problems.
Let's face it: Apple is a monopoly, but with such a small market share, it is a monopoly that we have freely chosen to deal with. We Mac consumers cannot go to the DOJ and claim we have no alternatives (just because your alternatives suck doesn't mean you don't have them.) If Apple were wildly successful and exceeded this threshold market share, their business model may be interfered with by the government.
10% should be far below that threshold.
Middiebear
May 4, 04:01 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)
Can the front page print a retraction?...
AT&T CSRs don't receive any official information about ANY phone releases prior to general public... Let alone an iPhone release.
We weren't informed about the iPhone 4 being released until AFTER Apple's official press conference last year.
Even though I know this is a site for rumors... I've found this site to make sure the BS rumors were weeded out before it would become front-page news... But making an unsubstantiated statement by a random AT&T CSR front-page material is just plain bad journalism.
BTW: AT&T has been cracking down on customer's upgrade eligibility dates. If you downgrade/remove features/plans on your account odds are the date will be changed.
AT&T makes no promises that the date is constant and it can really change at any time...
The customer related to the article probably was suspended too many times for non-pay and that's the reason why the date was changed... Not because of some crazy conspiracy to correlate with the next iPhone release...
Can the front page print a retraction?...
AT&T CSRs don't receive any official information about ANY phone releases prior to general public... Let alone an iPhone release.
We weren't informed about the iPhone 4 being released until AFTER Apple's official press conference last year.
Even though I know this is a site for rumors... I've found this site to make sure the BS rumors were weeded out before it would become front-page news... But making an unsubstantiated statement by a random AT&T CSR front-page material is just plain bad journalism.
BTW: AT&T has been cracking down on customer's upgrade eligibility dates. If you downgrade/remove features/plans on your account odds are the date will be changed.
AT&T makes no promises that the date is constant and it can really change at any time...
The customer related to the article probably was suspended too many times for non-pay and that's the reason why the date was changed... Not because of some crazy conspiracy to correlate with the next iPhone release...
more...
jbanger
Sep 15, 03:29 AM
og's
251762
251762
reubs
Jan 28, 02:44 PM
Lol I pretty much killed that whole bag in one day. $9 in my belly!
Picked up a 32gb Transcend Class 10 SDHC for the hp mini. $50 is not bad for all that extra storage space.
Are the Transcends pretty good cards? I need to get some high capacity SD cards for some read only storage, and I've never had any experience with SDHC cards.
Where'd you pick these up?
Picked up a 32gb Transcend Class 10 SDHC for the hp mini. $50 is not bad for all that extra storage space.
Are the Transcends pretty good cards? I need to get some high capacity SD cards for some read only storage, and I've never had any experience with SDHC cards.
Where'd you pick these up?
BenRoethig
May 3, 08:18 AM
Good update. Nothing revolutionary, but everything that was expected.
jeevesofRKdia
Apr 4, 05:09 PM
http://chrismccormack.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v23/p250652679-4.jpg
All those fruits look so ripe and unflawed! I wish I could buy fruits that looked that delectable. Instead, I get raspberries with the occasional black spot and kumquats that look more like little limes than little oranges... :D
All those fruits look so ripe and unflawed! I wish I could buy fruits that looked that delectable. Instead, I get raspberries with the occasional black spot and kumquats that look more like little limes than little oranges... :D
URFloorMatt
Apr 22, 06:25 PM
To everyone else here.. it's a mock-up, which means it's not real. I think we all know Apple wouldn't release one that looks like the mock-up.The iPad 2 says you're wrong.
Clive At Five
Jul 25, 10:15 AM
And this is exactly why we will know in advance the arrival of the iPhone. If the FCC must approve it, someone will find the filling online a month before its release.
...and by a month, I meant a day
*cough*
;)
-Clive
...and by a month, I meant a day
*cough*
;)
-Clive
PBF
Apr 24, 02:44 PM
Heres another image with the new proximity sensor. Hmm..
Image (http://pocketnow.com/html/portal/news/0000016260//iphone-4-t-mobile.jpg)
You can't even see it. LOL
Image (http://pocketnow.com/html/portal/news/0000016260//iphone-4-t-mobile.jpg)
You can't even see it. LOL
Hastings101
Mar 31, 08:30 PM
Heinous. Absolutely hideous.
And I'm a fan of eye candy.
The faux leather is almost as bad as this "Marble" OS X mockup, from back in the day:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3392/3333642840_d905e48e47_o.jpg
I actually kind of like that, outside of the ugly close/min/max buttons and the scroll bars :P
And I'm a fan of eye candy.
The faux leather is almost as bad as this "Marble" OS X mockup, from back in the day:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3392/3333642840_d905e48e47_o.jpg
I actually kind of like that, outside of the ugly close/min/max buttons and the scroll bars :P
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét