appleguy123
May 3, 05:53 PM
I second exploring, because I'm too confused to have any alternate ideas. I'm sure it'll get better as time goes on.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 10, 11:43 AM
In my opinion-
48/2(9+3) = 288
48/(2(9+3)) = 2
To make it clear you could write it with ( ... )^-1 like a real man! :D
By adding the second set of (), you changed the equation, therefore the two different answers. As written in the original way, the answer 2 is clearly wrong.
48/2(9+3) = 288
48/(2(9+3)) = 2
To make it clear you could write it with ( ... )^-1 like a real man! :D
By adding the second set of (), you changed the equation, therefore the two different answers. As written in the original way, the answer 2 is clearly wrong.
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
aafuss1
Aug 7, 10:04 PM
http://search.info.apple.com/?q=mac+pro&lr=lang_en&search=Go&type=- DIY parts instructions.
treblah
Aug 3, 12:27 AM
There is this field report on CNET. This is not info from a SLIDE. It is from a real world field test.
Video: Long-lasting Intel Core 2 Duo notebooks (http://news.com.com/1606-2_3-6100051.html?part=rss&tag=6100051&subj=news)
Over 5 hours of battery life with Merom vs. 3 hours with Yonah.
From New York on Airplane, Yonah PC battery died over Chicago while same size Merom PC battery made it all the way to LA. So I am RIGHT NOT WRONG. :eek:
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/intel/intel-core-2-duo-laptops-last-5-hours-in-cross-country-flight-191002.php
Flying West to East means leaving SF and arriving in NYC. :rolleyes:
Please tell me I'm wrong again.
Video: Long-lasting Intel Core 2 Duo notebooks (http://news.com.com/1606-2_3-6100051.html?part=rss&tag=6100051&subj=news)
Over 5 hours of battery life with Merom vs. 3 hours with Yonah.
From New York on Airplane, Yonah PC battery died over Chicago while same size Merom PC battery made it all the way to LA. So I am RIGHT NOT WRONG. :eek:
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/intel/intel-core-2-duo-laptops-last-5-hours-in-cross-country-flight-191002.php
Flying West to East means leaving SF and arriving in NYC. :rolleyes:
Please tell me I'm wrong again.
sockdoggy
Apr 8, 05:58 PM
Lg and Samsung both are completing multi billion $ plants mid 2011 for OLED panels that next gen iPhones and iPad's will use - Apple has already ordered over $7 billion $ of production to run on these lines.
Yeah- It seems as though Apple has secured the parts they need for production. Plain and simple.
On the other hand, it seems as though RIM announced a product that they hadn't secured any means of production for. Just plain stupid.
The CEO of RIM needs a good talking to by investors. Although I suppose that's already reflected in the share price.
Yeah- It seems as though Apple has secured the parts they need for production. Plain and simple.
On the other hand, it seems as though RIM announced a product that they hadn't secured any means of production for. Just plain stupid.
The CEO of RIM needs a good talking to by investors. Although I suppose that's already reflected in the share price.
citizenzen
Apr 15, 07:49 PM
Or was that simply the strawman rhetorical question of the day ... err ... hour?
It seemed like a cogent point to me. Your perspective will change if you do any number of things. Bet on horse races for a living and you'll never look at a horse in the same way that other people do.
Earlier itcheroni said ...
I am primarily focused on making money through the time decay of the options.
Now I don't mean to be cruel, but he isn't making anything, creating anything or contributing anything to society through this livelihood. He's merely siphoning off the flow. And he wants to talk about perspective? It seems to me that making a living that way is guaranteed to give you a warped perspective.
It's a perspective I'm glad I don't share.
It seemed like a cogent point to me. Your perspective will change if you do any number of things. Bet on horse races for a living and you'll never look at a horse in the same way that other people do.
Earlier itcheroni said ...
I am primarily focused on making money through the time decay of the options.
Now I don't mean to be cruel, but he isn't making anything, creating anything or contributing anything to society through this livelihood. He's merely siphoning off the flow. And he wants to talk about perspective? It seems to me that making a living that way is guaranteed to give you a warped perspective.
It's a perspective I'm glad I don't share.
bella92108
Apr 5, 01:47 PM
2010 - Apple Loses #1 Mobile OS spot to Android OS
2011 - Apple pisses off their JB customers and loses 10% more
2012 - Apple loses #2 and #3 spot to Windows Mobile & HP OS
Within 12 months Apple will own the same market share as their computers, 9% ... and it'll have been the same story: rose to glory, abuse the customer and business partners, people get sick of the rulebook and leave for more open pastures.
This is all deja vu from the 80s repeating itself, wow.
I dumped iPhone at xmas, now I'll likely dump iPad 2 if this trend continues. If they really push the washington involvement to stop jailbreaking, I'll get rid of my 3 iMac\MB Air\MB Pro... I don't support companies who attack me. They're here because of me, not the opposite. If they don't get that, adios.
2011 - Apple pisses off their JB customers and loses 10% more
2012 - Apple loses #2 and #3 spot to Windows Mobile & HP OS
Within 12 months Apple will own the same market share as their computers, 9% ... and it'll have been the same story: rose to glory, abuse the customer and business partners, people get sick of the rulebook and leave for more open pastures.
This is all deja vu from the 80s repeating itself, wow.
I dumped iPhone at xmas, now I'll likely dump iPad 2 if this trend continues. If they really push the washington involvement to stop jailbreaking, I'll get rid of my 3 iMac\MB Air\MB Pro... I don't support companies who attack me. They're here because of me, not the opposite. If they don't get that, adios.
Moyank24
May 3, 08:53 PM
i second this motion. we could also split and move to and search two rooms, but it's probably best to wait for at least one up-level before we split.
which room is irrelevant.
another option, since from the GM's words the first round seems to be safe, would be to split in three groups: one goes to each of the adjacent rooms and then we all explore the thre next rooms. the next round we can converge back to the start room, explore it and be a single group again
the positive is that we find any treasure in the first 3 rooms, we expand the map, we also give less hint on where we can go next to mscriv.
the negative is that any treasure only applies to some of the people, and that we have to come back here to rejoin.
iphone 5 release date in
new iphone 5 release date
iPhone 5 Release Date Clues:
ipad 2 release date price,
iphone 5 release date
iPhone 5 release date pushed
apple iphone 5 release date
iphone 6 release date.
iphone 5 release date
new iphone 5 release date
which room is irrelevant.
another option, since from the GM's words the first round seems to be safe, would be to split in three groups: one goes to each of the adjacent rooms and then we all explore the thre next rooms. the next round we can converge back to the start room, explore it and be a single group again
the positive is that we find any treasure in the first 3 rooms, we expand the map, we also give less hint on where we can go next to mscriv.
the negative is that any treasure only applies to some of the people, and that we have to come back here to rejoin.
URFloorMatt
Mar 28, 12:19 PM
Hmm. I suppose this increases the likelihood of the next iPhone being the "iPhone 4G" after all.
That said, my 3GS contract is up in June. If Apple waits until October to release the next iPhone, and it's not LTE, then I will be jumping ship. Never thought I'd say that, but I'm not holding onto a 3G-only phone until almost 2013.
That said, my 3GS contract is up in June. If Apple waits until October to release the next iPhone, and it's not LTE, then I will be jumping ship. Never thought I'd say that, but I'm not holding onto a 3G-only phone until almost 2013.
jouster
Mar 30, 10:23 AM
It's even funnier since "a penny saved is a penny earned" isn't an idiom at all. An "idiom," in this sense, is a group of words that has a meaning as a whole other than the literal sense of the words. "Raining cats and dogs" is an idiom. "A penny saved is a penny earned" is a proverb, or possibly a cliche.
Glad we got that sorted out.
Glad we got that sorted out.
callmemike20
Apr 18, 08:18 PM
What constitutes being a "last resort"?
It makes more sense to me to put in clauses that reverse tax increases once a goal has been reached.
Use all the tools in the tool chest to solve the problem.
You clause is a great idea, but we all know that taxes never go away. Wasn't the income tax supposed to be temporary also? Once the government gets their hands on more money, they become less worried about adjusting their spending because the problem is basically fixed (in their minds) due to the additional income.
You are right about using all the tools available to solve the problem. So let me recommend something. It's basically a reversal of your clause. The clause would allow a taxation adjustment (which would be predetermined) once 20% of spending has been cut (or some other amount).
An example (with simplified numbers):
Government Income: $1 billion
Government Spending: $1.50 billion
Total government debt: $5 billion
Defense Spending: $ 300 million (20%)
Social Security: $300 million (20%)
Police/Fire Spending: $200 million (about 13%)
Medical: $250 million (about 17%)
Other: $450 million (30%)
Now, let's say an agreement was made that would increase tax income to $1.2 billion, but in order for those taxes to be effective, the spending must be cut to $1.1 billion ( $0.1 billion difference for miscalculations and to pay off debt). So, each of those departments should still obtain the same amount of funding as % of government income, so 20% of $1.1 billion would be $220 million, which is a reduction of 80 million for defense.
Go down the line and do this for every department. If it doesn't work, then cut other programs to provide adequate funding the the extremely necessary departments that need it.
It makes more sense to me to put in clauses that reverse tax increases once a goal has been reached.
Use all the tools in the tool chest to solve the problem.
You clause is a great idea, but we all know that taxes never go away. Wasn't the income tax supposed to be temporary also? Once the government gets their hands on more money, they become less worried about adjusting their spending because the problem is basically fixed (in their minds) due to the additional income.
You are right about using all the tools available to solve the problem. So let me recommend something. It's basically a reversal of your clause. The clause would allow a taxation adjustment (which would be predetermined) once 20% of spending has been cut (or some other amount).
An example (with simplified numbers):
Government Income: $1 billion
Government Spending: $1.50 billion
Total government debt: $5 billion
Defense Spending: $ 300 million (20%)
Social Security: $300 million (20%)
Police/Fire Spending: $200 million (about 13%)
Medical: $250 million (about 17%)
Other: $450 million (30%)
Now, let's say an agreement was made that would increase tax income to $1.2 billion, but in order for those taxes to be effective, the spending must be cut to $1.1 billion ( $0.1 billion difference for miscalculations and to pay off debt). So, each of those departments should still obtain the same amount of funding as % of government income, so 20% of $1.1 billion would be $220 million, which is a reduction of 80 million for defense.
Go down the line and do this for every department. If it doesn't work, then cut other programs to provide adequate funding the the extremely necessary departments that need it.
dXTC
Mar 29, 01:47 PM
In 5-10 years the iPod will become extinct. By then the touch will be hanging on a thin wire.
Lemme guess... it'll all be in the cloud, right?
Lemme guess... it'll all be in the cloud, right?
el3ktro
May 8, 05:34 AM
That would be awesome. They should at least cut the price. MobileMe adds so much value to your iProducts, I have a MacBook, an iPhone and since yesterday an iPad, and MobileMe makes all three of them so much more valuable. But I know lots of people who would like to use MobileMe, but who say that 79� is just to much for it.
rdlink
Apr 21, 09:12 PM
And how do you operate it? A server can be accessed from a workstation but a Mac Pro IS a workstation, it's not a server. It's not a logical step. I have a professional photographer in the family, with a Mac Pro. He needs to load his RAWs onto his Mac for post processing. How to do this if that Mac is in another room, in a rack :confused: Very inconvenient if you ask me.
Not sure you quite get it. The idea here would be that the one machine could be used either as a workstation, or as a server. You could use it in a SOHO situation as a workstation/under the desk server. An enterprise could configure it as a rack mounted server. One assembly line. Two products.
Not sure you quite get it. The idea here would be that the one machine could be used either as a workstation, or as a server. You could use it in a SOHO situation as a workstation/under the desk server. An enterprise could configure it as a rack mounted server. One assembly line. Two products.
tf843364
Aug 4, 12:14 AM
Never buy an apple product!!!
As soon as you do something new and better comes out!!!
AAAHHHHHH
I am typing this away on my new Macbook, Core 1 Duo; which i bought under the self-brainwashed reasoning that the MBP alone would see 2x2. Why you ask? Cuz I figured hey, the MB JUST came out, why refresh it every 2 months! The MBP has been out like 8 months, that makes sense.
I can only PRAY I am right.
No that my Macbook will be instant crap... I just COULD have waited until september.
Damn you apple...
As soon as you do something new and better comes out!!!
AAAHHHHHH
I am typing this away on my new Macbook, Core 1 Duo; which i bought under the self-brainwashed reasoning that the MBP alone would see 2x2. Why you ask? Cuz I figured hey, the MB JUST came out, why refresh it every 2 months! The MBP has been out like 8 months, that makes sense.
I can only PRAY I am right.
No that my Macbook will be instant crap... I just COULD have waited until september.
Damn you apple...
iamrawr
May 7, 11:16 PM
Do it! Free is good :cool:
Swarmlord
Nov 27, 09:22 AM
i don't think it would appeal to that many people, to have an apple tablet.
i mean, the PC/Win versions aren't great sellers...
Probably used more for medical infomatics applications than anything else. Here at the nursing college I work for we are always evaluating Windoze tablet computers for medical applications. Sure would be nice to see a Mac alternative out there.
i mean, the PC/Win versions aren't great sellers...
Probably used more for medical infomatics applications than anything else. Here at the nursing college I work for we are always evaluating Windoze tablet computers for medical applications. Sure would be nice to see a Mac alternative out there.
NY Guitarist
Apr 21, 03:36 PM
The rack mount format is just for that: to mount in a standard 19" rack, along with other equipment and even a rack-mount UPS. That's not the realm of a Mac Pro. It's the realm of servers. I like the current, and brilliant, case design very much. It's an example of form follows function and great industrial design.
I know many professional situations where a Mac Pro would be ideal as a rack mountable unit.
Recording studio, on location video production (DIT), and studio based post-production rigs, basically places where other equipment is racked, may need to be secured, cooled, power conditioned, or in mobile racks. Rack mounting in not only for servers.
Having said that, I love the current Mac Pro towers, brilliant industrial design both inside and outside, unlike the G5 Quad 2.5.
I know many professional situations where a Mac Pro would be ideal as a rack mountable unit.
Recording studio, on location video production (DIT), and studio based post-production rigs, basically places where other equipment is racked, may need to be secured, cooled, power conditioned, or in mobile racks. Rack mounting in not only for servers.
Having said that, I love the current Mac Pro towers, brilliant industrial design both inside and outside, unlike the G5 Quad 2.5.
roland.g
Aug 11, 02:16 PM
True, but 64-bit in a 32-bit envrionment is still going to run only at 32-bit or not at all. But mlrproducts is right, they do have a while.
it doesn't matter if you have a 64-bit processor and OS, you have to have 4Gb of RAM to run in 64-bit.
it doesn't matter if you have a 64-bit processor and OS, you have to have 4Gb of RAM to run in 64-bit.
Stridder44
May 6, 01:18 AM
No way. Intel is fantastic, their CPUs are nearly unmatched, and while Intel itself can be finicky sometimes, it's not worth the headache of transitioning again. Not unless ARM has some amazing crap up it's sleeve that will de-rail all of Intel's market share. This rumor makes sense on some low end laptops, maybe, but the entire lineup? Hell no. Plus I've gotten used to being able to run Windows in Boot Camp.
It's taken Apple over a decade to get where we are now. Why would they throw all that away? Not to mention that ARM has absolutely nothing that comes even slightly close to even mid-range Intel chips. And even in two years time, I'm very doubtful.
It's taken Apple over a decade to get where we are now. Why would they throw all that away? Not to mention that ARM has absolutely nothing that comes even slightly close to even mid-range Intel chips. And even in two years time, I'm very doubtful.
iSee
Mar 28, 10:26 AM
I don't necessarily believe this rumor, but I'm OK with Apple breaking with the yearly update cycle. That's not necessarily the way to come out with the best phone because some types of changes might not match a June/July release (for a variety of reasons).
My 3GS is due to be replaced in the summer, but I'd rather have a big improvement over iPhone 4 in January or whatever, than iPhone "4.5" in July.
My 3GS is due to be replaced in the summer, but I'd rather have a big improvement over iPhone 4 in January or whatever, than iPhone "4.5" in July.
CellarDoor
Aug 4, 02:08 PM
maybe, but we don't have that yet
sure we do. Developer Tools for example. also there are more 64 bit 3rd party apps out there, that I dont feel like looking up right now.
however, your right, consumer apps are primarily 32 bit, and os x apps like ical, mail etc, wont go 64 bit until leopard.
sure we do. Developer Tools for example. also there are more 64 bit 3rd party apps out there, that I dont feel like looking up right now.
however, your right, consumer apps are primarily 32 bit, and os x apps like ical, mail etc, wont go 64 bit until leopard.
840quadra
Apr 26, 04:19 PM
I didn't need to google, that's something I know.
Which you obviously didn't since your argument was why Apple should worry about their market share when Ferrari and Porsche aren't. They should just continue to make exclusive products.
I bet they worried right up and until they got bought by a company that didn't worry about making cheaper products.
Re-Read your Porsche history.
Your understanding of the Porsche / VW relationship is backwards. It is Porsche that owns a stake in VW, not the other way around.
Which you obviously didn't since your argument was why Apple should worry about their market share when Ferrari and Porsche aren't. They should just continue to make exclusive products.
I bet they worried right up and until they got bought by a company that didn't worry about making cheaper products.
Re-Read your Porsche history.
Your understanding of the Porsche / VW relationship is backwards. It is Porsche that owns a stake in VW, not the other way around.
No comments:
Post a Comment