evilgEEk
Sep 6, 07:44 PM
$19.99 for a downloaded movie, that's absolutely ridiculous. There is no way I would ever pay that much when I can go buy a new release DVD for $12-14.99. Amazon's service will fail, especially if Apple does indeed release a Movie Store.
I'm not a fan of $14.99 either, but it's a little more reasonable.
Of course all of this depends on the quality and if you can burn it.
Six more days. :)
I'm not a fan of $14.99 either, but it's a little more reasonable.
Of course all of this depends on the quality and if you can burn it.
Six more days. :)
x86isslow
Nov 29, 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by longofest View Post
Actually, I was thinking they were working on a car
oh hell yeah, the iCar? Couldn't be iDrive - that's already a BMW thing
Apple to design a car?
http://www.theapplecollection.com/Collection/various/sponsorcourse.jpg
Originally Posted by longofest View Post
Actually, I was thinking they were working on a car
oh hell yeah, the iCar? Couldn't be iDrive - that's already a BMW thing
Apple to design a car?
http://www.theapplecollection.com/Collection/various/sponsorcourse.jpg
ctsport1234
Sep 1, 02:08 PM
This is awsome news! :D
If Apple does make a 23'' imac, I will definately be getting one! (albeit when Leopard is released) :D
If Apple does make a 23'' imac, I will definately be getting one! (albeit when Leopard is released) :D
twoodcc
Apr 26, 10:37 AM
congrats to whiterabbit for 14 million points!
iJohnHenry
Mar 31, 05:41 PM
Didn't the Persian supply corridor factor into the soviets being able to hold off the Germans?
As did the supply ships making their way to Murmansk. Many merchant marines lost their lives on that run.
As did the supply ships making their way to Murmansk. Many merchant marines lost their lives on that run.
adroit
Nov 15, 11:25 AM
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
This is true, but there are still many many ways to optimize the multi-core processor that's not currently being use.
For example, I am waiting for a program to compile right now. Although I have a dual core on my computer, the compiler only compile one file at a time and usually takes about 10 min to do a full compile . If I have an 8 core computer with a multi-threaded compiler then I can cut the total time to jsut over a min + couple of seconds for linking time.
I think the main problem with muti-threading program is that it is difficult to implement, especially for coders who only knows high-level languages. Muti-threading in low-level program such as C is not easy but at least it is straight-forward. But trying to muti-thread high-level language such as VB or C# can get you into a big headace since everything is abstracted from the programmer. To do that, you need to get into unsafe code and call a bunch of DLLs, and it's easy to get memory leaks. Basically it can start to get very complicated, very quickly.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
This is true, but there are still many many ways to optimize the multi-core processor that's not currently being use.
For example, I am waiting for a program to compile right now. Although I have a dual core on my computer, the compiler only compile one file at a time and usually takes about 10 min to do a full compile . If I have an 8 core computer with a multi-threaded compiler then I can cut the total time to jsut over a min + couple of seconds for linking time.
I think the main problem with muti-threading program is that it is difficult to implement, especially for coders who only knows high-level languages. Muti-threading in low-level program such as C is not easy but at least it is straight-forward. But trying to muti-thread high-level language such as VB or C# can get you into a big headace since everything is abstracted from the programmer. To do that, you need to get into unsafe code and call a bunch of DLLs, and it's easy to get memory leaks. Basically it can start to get very complicated, very quickly.
epicwelshman
Aug 29, 08:56 AM
I think it's ridiculous to not put a Core 2 Duo chip into the Mini. While I'm not waiting for Merom, to upgrade one of your machines with a faster version of the same soon-to-be-out-of-date chip is silly.
brepublican
Aug 7, 07:55 AM
I think he means more like XP SP2 / Vista.
Well all those measure are bogus. OS X is far more secure than you can get from that Windows crap.
Thats why Leopard is Vista Reloaded, ver 2.0
:)
Well all those measure are bogus. OS X is far more secure than you can get from that Windows crap.
Thats why Leopard is Vista Reloaded, ver 2.0
:)
bketchum
Sep 1, 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCaveMann
I think this rumor should be taken with a grain of salt. It seems highly unlikely a 23 inch imac would emerge (or even should emerge).
I couldn't disagree with you more.
This size represents the iMac that can display Full resolution 1080p HD content. If they introduce this and then eventually throw a Blu-ray in there they've got the killer combination. Front Row is already setup to be a home-theatre replacement. I mean come on, it's basically an HDTV...it's 1080p, it's got a remote, and it's got front row... This will sell like crack... Digital crack...
I agree. If this rumor is true, this will be my next computer. I'm shopping for an LCD TV and a computer. A 23-inch iMac would cover both for me nicely. Fingers crossed.
Originally Posted by CaptainCaveMann
I think this rumor should be taken with a grain of salt. It seems highly unlikely a 23 inch imac would emerge (or even should emerge).
I couldn't disagree with you more.
This size represents the iMac that can display Full resolution 1080p HD content. If they introduce this and then eventually throw a Blu-ray in there they've got the killer combination. Front Row is already setup to be a home-theatre replacement. I mean come on, it's basically an HDTV...it's 1080p, it's got a remote, and it's got front row... This will sell like crack... Digital crack...
I agree. If this rumor is true, this will be my next computer. I'm shopping for an LCD TV and a computer. A 23-inch iMac would cover both for me nicely. Fingers crossed.
CyberB0b
Sep 7, 11:57 AM
Whichever way the Apple store does it, buy or rent, Microsoft will do the other way in a couple years but will be nowhere as easy to use or as popular. But Microsoft will license it to thousands of other companies to set up their own movie stores and movie hardware and they will all be incompatible with Apple's store and hardware.
I can't wait for all the stories about Micorosoft's own "killer" new movie thingamabob.
I can't wait for all the stories about Micorosoft's own "killer" new movie thingamabob.
A.Fairhead
Jul 18, 04:11 AM
I hope the rental thing is true--I don't want to own. I'm not with Steve Jobs on this one (assuming the rumors are true that he opposes rentals).
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
For the few movies/shows I'd want to own, I want the discs (Blu-Ray preferred :) ) and the ability to take them to a friends' house.
Also, if it's a rental model, I can be more forgiving on quality. They'd have to be better than iPod 320x240 (except, obviously, when played ON an iPod), but if they're a little bit short of DVD quality, I'd still be bored enough to seek instant gratification and rent some. The price would have to be right, of course. Netflix rentals cost about $2.50 each on my plan. For slightly-sub-DVD quality and near-instant delivery, I'd pay maybe $2. For FULL DVD quality I'd certainly be willing to match Netlflix's price, or even pay a little more (for iTunes convenience/speed).
I agree; I watch movies a lot more than I buy movies. When I go to the cinema, I pay to watch the film, not to own it. Most people do this - owning films is something of an impulse post-viewing, in my experience. If iTMS can provide a rental service, that's great. If they end up providing purchases too, then, that's great too. Apple will be able to target 'viewing' markets as well as 'purchase' markets, if the difference is easy enough to see there.
I guess my thoughts are to not rule out rentals - I'm sure many of you work with films like I've just described :p
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
For the few movies/shows I'd want to own, I want the discs (Blu-Ray preferred :) ) and the ability to take them to a friends' house.
Also, if it's a rental model, I can be more forgiving on quality. They'd have to be better than iPod 320x240 (except, obviously, when played ON an iPod), but if they're a little bit short of DVD quality, I'd still be bored enough to seek instant gratification and rent some. The price would have to be right, of course. Netflix rentals cost about $2.50 each on my plan. For slightly-sub-DVD quality and near-instant delivery, I'd pay maybe $2. For FULL DVD quality I'd certainly be willing to match Netlflix's price, or even pay a little more (for iTunes convenience/speed).
I agree; I watch movies a lot more than I buy movies. When I go to the cinema, I pay to watch the film, not to own it. Most people do this - owning films is something of an impulse post-viewing, in my experience. If iTMS can provide a rental service, that's great. If they end up providing purchases too, then, that's great too. Apple will be able to target 'viewing' markets as well as 'purchase' markets, if the difference is easy enough to see there.
I guess my thoughts are to not rule out rentals - I'm sure many of you work with films like I've just described :p
Shookster
Sep 14, 09:24 AM
Does Consumer Reports stop recommending automobile purchases? Because you know if there is an issue with a car, the manufacturer will issue a recall. If you are affected, you have to take it into a dealer where it will be fixed. The onus is on the owner of the car, for crying out loud! The auto manufacturers should go house to house providing the fix for free to all cars, whether their owners report a problem or not!
Wait, you mean Consumer Reports does not hold the auto manufacturers to the same artificial standard they hold Apple to? How amazing...
I guess you don't read the news. Toyota has recalled millions of vehicles this year, even though not every owner of those vehicles was specifically experiencing the problem.
Wait, you mean Consumer Reports does not hold the auto manufacturers to the same artificial standard they hold Apple to? How amazing...
I guess you don't read the news. Toyota has recalled millions of vehicles this year, even though not every owner of those vehicles was specifically experiencing the problem.
mc68k
Jan 7, 01:46 PM
my 2003 540i M Wagon. upgraded w afe intake and remus exhaust. custom catback piping + resonator delete. stock 290HP/320torque :) 92K miles. next mod is prob full aluminum radiator + electric fan. i heard the cooling system starts degrading around 100K. got the water pump (replaced OEM plastic w metal impeller) and hoses done when i first bought it
took on a 3200mi road trip last year-- really fun on the highway and surprisingly gets good highway mileage
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/2327/img0209ed.th.jpg (http://img89.imageshack.us/i/img0209ed.jpg/)
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7297/img0210uy.th.jpg (http://img153.imageshack.us/i/img0210uy.jpg/)
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/5186/img0211g.th.jpg (http://img716.imageshack.us/i/img0211g.jpg/)
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/998/img0213gu.th.jpg (http://img404.imageshack.us/i/img0213gu.jpg/)
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/1771/img0252vm.th.jpg (http://img819.imageshack.us/i/img0252vm.jpg/)
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/9484/img0253sy.th.jpg (http://img402.imageshack.us/i/img0253sy.jpg/)
daily driver is a 97 lumina
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9144153/Photo%20Jan%2007%2C%2011%2043%2034%20AM.jpg
took on a 3200mi road trip last year-- really fun on the highway and surprisingly gets good highway mileage
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/2327/img0209ed.th.jpg (http://img89.imageshack.us/i/img0209ed.jpg/)
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7297/img0210uy.th.jpg (http://img153.imageshack.us/i/img0210uy.jpg/)
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/5186/img0211g.th.jpg (http://img716.imageshack.us/i/img0211g.jpg/)
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/998/img0213gu.th.jpg (http://img404.imageshack.us/i/img0213gu.jpg/)
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/1771/img0252vm.th.jpg (http://img819.imageshack.us/i/img0252vm.jpg/)
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/9484/img0253sy.th.jpg (http://img402.imageshack.us/i/img0253sy.jpg/)
daily driver is a 97 lumina
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9144153/Photo%20Jan%2007%2C%2011%2043%2034%20AM.jpg
meepm00pmeep
Oct 23, 06:49 AM
i'd like to see what's inside the new MBP's, though i already bought my MBP a couple weeks ago with no regrets.. i'd still like to see what those who are waiting will get for their hard earned patience
twoodcc
Jan 29, 11:07 PM
congrats to rwh202 for 3 million points!
congrats to SteveMoody for 6 million points!
and i was able to hit 5 million points recently! even though my production is down slightly, while my last power bill was up ($190). so my production might go down a lil more
congrats to SteveMoody for 6 million points!
and i was able to hit 5 million points recently! even though my production is down slightly, while my last power bill was up ($190). so my production might go down a lil more
toddybody
Mar 24, 01:15 PM
Even then though...I dont think this means anything special for non-MacPro owners. Everything else gets the mGPU treatment:(
itsmeGAV
Feb 8, 05:52 AM
It's keeping the OEM 17s, I look the OEM+ look. It's simple and good looking.
Fairplay man, the car still looks badass, but you ever thought of de-badging it?
Fairplay man, the car still looks badass, but you ever thought of de-badging it?
-Ken-
Mar 24, 01:02 PM
Excellent, now I can upgrade my Hackintosh's GPU.
czardmitri
Nov 28, 02:16 PM
one of the key differences between the xbox and zune. is that microsoft only had to contend with 2 other players in the video game indistry. the ipod maybe top. but there are hundred of other companies to battle first just to reach second place. and also phone companies. spending money maynot help them like in the case of the xbox.
The main difference (as I understand it) is that MS can at least attempt to make up for their losses on the sales of xBoxes from the games that are licensed for xBox. They can't do the same with music for the money they're losing on each Zune sold. Apple's margin on music is slim; they make money on the iPods.
The main difference (as I understand it) is that MS can at least attempt to make up for their losses on the sales of xBoxes from the games that are licensed for xBox. They can't do the same with music for the money they're losing on each Zune sold. Apple's margin on music is slim; they make money on the iPods.
HecubusPro
Aug 30, 11:36 AM
Fry's Electronics is advertising Core Solo Mini's for $499 today. "Some demo, some open box". That is usually a sign that they are clearing out their remaining stock of an item.
Is this all Fry's stores, or just the one you're referring to. If it's store-wide, I might actually have to make a trip down to my local Burbank Fry's store after work tonight. :)
Is this all Fry's stores, or just the one you're referring to. If it's store-wide, I might actually have to make a trip down to my local Burbank Fry's store after work tonight. :)
zoran
Nov 21, 10:10 AM
This rumor seems to be only a rumor! Its Nov 21st today, when will octos come? Next year i guess... damn it!:mad:
sfwalter
Jul 19, 03:47 PM
Those analysts really need to do their homework. They brought Apple's stock down because of their negativity. Since they were wrong I think the analysts need to reimburse shareholders for lost money :).
wizard
Mar 24, 01:50 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
next step amd cpus
*Children Screaming in background
Im no snob against AMD GPUS...but their CPU's are nearly 2 generations behind intel. I dont think Bulldozer is going to match the 1155 SB, much less the upcoming 2011 socket chips.
What I want to see is a 27inch iMac with an HD 6970 2GB...Whoa whoa wee wow:eek:
And is not perfect by any means but then again Intel doesn't really deserve the credit they get. Just look at the SB GPU and the bugs in SB in general. Since on can get superior GPU performance from AMD, and that is critical for some users, why not go with an entire AMD system? Yes I know the CPU is a little behind what Intel offers but that isn't a problem in Apples low end systems. Let's face it the Mini has never had a bleeding edge processor.
This discussion gets even more interesting when you consider AMDs coming Fusion processors. If you are about to buy a system with an integrated SoC solution which would you rather have an AMD GPU or an Intel one? Yeah I realize that some people need the fastest CPUs they can get, but for many a fast GPU delivers a better experience.
On top of all of that AMD seems to have the same vision of the future where the GPU becomes a kore equal partner to the CPU on SoCs. AMD is all in with OpenCL support today and has future plans to make such code much lower in overhead. Right up Apples alley.
In any event I see a number of reasons for Apple to split sales between AMD and Intel. Long term a few AMD based machines from Apple is better for both Apple and the industry.
next step amd cpus
*Children Screaming in background
Im no snob against AMD GPUS...but their CPU's are nearly 2 generations behind intel. I dont think Bulldozer is going to match the 1155 SB, much less the upcoming 2011 socket chips.
What I want to see is a 27inch iMac with an HD 6970 2GB...Whoa whoa wee wow:eek:
And is not perfect by any means but then again Intel doesn't really deserve the credit they get. Just look at the SB GPU and the bugs in SB in general. Since on can get superior GPU performance from AMD, and that is critical for some users, why not go with an entire AMD system? Yes I know the CPU is a little behind what Intel offers but that isn't a problem in Apples low end systems. Let's face it the Mini has never had a bleeding edge processor.
This discussion gets even more interesting when you consider AMDs coming Fusion processors. If you are about to buy a system with an integrated SoC solution which would you rather have an AMD GPU or an Intel one? Yeah I realize that some people need the fastest CPUs they can get, but for many a fast GPU delivers a better experience.
On top of all of that AMD seems to have the same vision of the future where the GPU becomes a kore equal partner to the CPU on SoCs. AMD is all in with OpenCL support today and has future plans to make such code much lower in overhead. Right up Apples alley.
In any event I see a number of reasons for Apple to split sales between AMD and Intel. Long term a few AMD based machines from Apple is better for both Apple and the industry.
nagromme
Jul 18, 02:06 AM
I hope the rental thing is true--I don't want to own. I'm not with Steve Jobs on this one (assuming the rumors are true that he opposes rentals).
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
For the few movies/shows I'd want to own, I want the discs (Blu-Ray preferred :) ) and the ability to take them to a friends' house.
Also, if it's a rental model, I can be more forgiving on quality. They'd have to be better than iPod 320x240 (except, obviously, when played ON an iPod), but if they're a little bit short of DVD quality, I'd still be bored enough to seek instant gratification and rent some. The price would have to be right, of course. Netflix rentals cost about $2.50 each on my plan. For slightly-sub-DVD quality and near-instant delivery, I'd pay maybe $2. For FULL DVD quality I'd certainly be willing to match Netlflix's price, or even pay a little more (for iTunes convenience/speed).
How often would I rent? Depends on selection... which means, probably not often :) At first. But it would be cool to see it grow to a collection that could rival Netflix.
After all, I already do all my movie watching on my Mac (sometimes connected to TV).
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
For the few movies/shows I'd want to own, I want the discs (Blu-Ray preferred :) ) and the ability to take them to a friends' house.
Also, if it's a rental model, I can be more forgiving on quality. They'd have to be better than iPod 320x240 (except, obviously, when played ON an iPod), but if they're a little bit short of DVD quality, I'd still be bored enough to seek instant gratification and rent some. The price would have to be right, of course. Netflix rentals cost about $2.50 each on my plan. For slightly-sub-DVD quality and near-instant delivery, I'd pay maybe $2. For FULL DVD quality I'd certainly be willing to match Netlflix's price, or even pay a little more (for iTunes convenience/speed).
How often would I rent? Depends on selection... which means, probably not often :) At first. But it would be cool to see it grow to a collection that could rival Netflix.
After all, I already do all my movie watching on my Mac (sometimes connected to TV).
