jeanlain
Apr 12, 04:22 AM
I'm on a 2006 Mac Pro 2.66GHz.
I never set up QMaster. It's installed, but I never touched it. Mpeg2 (highest quality double pass) saturates all cores.
EDIT: sending to compressor from the timeline doesn't change. FCP and compressor together use 350% CPU (400% max).
I never set up QMaster. It's installed, but I never touched it. Mpeg2 (highest quality double pass) saturates all cores.
EDIT: sending to compressor from the timeline doesn't change. FCP and compressor together use 350% CPU (400% max).
raymondso
Sep 19, 09:18 AM
0710 PDT - no updates yet - keep counting :-(
1:40 to go :p
1:40 to go :p
Kabeyun
Mar 22, 01:03 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
...and last, at least as far as the spec war argument goes. You're grafting a computer-shopping mentality onto a tablet market, and people don't think of tablets as computers. People don't buy tablets based on specs, and the spec difference between current or impending offerings it not what will define the user experience.
...and last, at least as far as the spec war argument goes. You're grafting a computer-shopping mentality onto a tablet market, and people don't think of tablets as computers. People don't buy tablets based on specs, and the spec difference between current or impending offerings it not what will define the user experience.
poppe
Jul 14, 02:40 PM
I doubt they'll do it too. For some reason this idea has come up over and over again during the last few weeks, and I'll continue to say what I've been saying - I don't see why apple would do that. It's a very appealing idea for a lot of MR folks because a lot of us are knowledgable users but not really professionals. But beyond that group, which is prevalent at MR but fairly rare in the real world, I don't see the appeal.
Also, think about what apple would be doing with such a machine - selling you a low cost, low margin mac that you could nonetheless upgrade with 3rd party components for years. Meaning that apple doesn't make a lot off you up front and doesn't get you coming back again for 5-ish years. Great for you, not so great for them. Whereas if they sell you a mac pro, they make a killing up front, so it's ok if you keep it for years, and if they sell you anything else you'll be back a lot sooner.
Dont ruin it!!! :p
Also, think about what apple would be doing with such a machine - selling you a low cost, low margin mac that you could nonetheless upgrade with 3rd party components for years. Meaning that apple doesn't make a lot off you up front and doesn't get you coming back again for 5-ish years. Great for you, not so great for them. Whereas if they sell you a mac pro, they make a killing up front, so it's ok if you keep it for years, and if they sell you anything else you'll be back a lot sooner.
Dont ruin it!!! :p
Machead III
Sep 19, 09:27 AM
I hope that the MacBook with Core 2 Duo is better than the Core Duo version :)
I hope it's worse?
I hope it's worse?
Zadillo
Aug 7, 09:35 PM
This preview of Leopard seemed really like a glaze over of some "fun" little advancements, it did not look polished at all...to all those dissapointed in what leopard has to offer, not to be punny, but steve has barely let the cat out of the bag
tonne more to come
I don't know, I thought Spaces and Time Machine looked very polished, personally. Spaces in particular is one of those things that I actually think will be genuinely useful (like Expose before it), and I like that it seems to be an even more useful implementation of the virtual desktops concept than what I've seen in Linux.
tonne more to come
I don't know, I thought Spaces and Time Machine looked very polished, personally. Spaces in particular is one of those things that I actually think will be genuinely useful (like Expose before it), and I like that it seems to be an even more useful implementation of the virtual desktops concept than what I've seen in Linux.
Stridder44
Aug 7, 04:14 PM
...You can also lock specific applications to specific Spaces, so you�ll always know where, say, Safari or Keynote is at all times.
Do you realize how awesome this would be at work???
Do you realize how awesome this would be at work???
aswitcher
Aug 5, 09:24 PM
WWDC = World Wide Developer Conference.
= Not Consumer Stuff.
It's been mentioned before... :rolleyes:
Umm, iSight came out at a WWDC - given free to all attendees...
= Not Consumer Stuff.
It's been mentioned before... :rolleyes:
Umm, iSight came out at a WWDC - given free to all attendees...
BWhaler
Aug 26, 11:36 PM
I'm sure the GPU will also be bumped, at the very least. The MBP will probably also see some things that the MB has like a user-removable hard drive and magnetic latch. The CPU and GPU alone make it worth getting the new one, IMO.
I agree. The practical differences between the Core Duo and the Core 2 Duo in real world tests are tiny.
But a serious bump to the GPU, HD, and the other enhancements you mention certainly would make the upgrade worthwhile.
I Just Hope Apple Joins The Rest Of The Manufacturers In This Mass Announcement. In this case, I wish they wouldn't "Think Differently".
I hope you are right. I would love to buy a MBP next week.
Expect new Merom-based macs, and a new iPod, on September 18th.
I suspect you are correct, but I hope you are wrong. I'd love to get a new MBP in the next couple of weeks before my next international trip. But to your point, I am not optimistic.
I agree. The practical differences between the Core Duo and the Core 2 Duo in real world tests are tiny.
But a serious bump to the GPU, HD, and the other enhancements you mention certainly would make the upgrade worthwhile.
I Just Hope Apple Joins The Rest Of The Manufacturers In This Mass Announcement. In this case, I wish they wouldn't "Think Differently".
I hope you are right. I would love to buy a MBP next week.
Expect new Merom-based macs, and a new iPod, on September 18th.
I suspect you are correct, but I hope you are wrong. I'd love to get a new MBP in the next couple of weeks before my next international trip. But to your point, I am not optimistic.
DPazdanISU
Sep 19, 06:50 AM
excellent, isn't the core 2 duo 64bit? if it is then I would like to buy one over the current models for sure
(i'm going for a macbook not pro)
(i'm going for a macbook not pro)
Eraserhead
Mar 23, 01:50 AM
These things don't travel very fast.
I was having a look on Google and a container ship only takes 20 days or so to get from China to Europe, and a military ship would be faster - so you don't need that much time to get ships into place.
And China to Europe by ship is a long way (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=hkg-sin-trv-dxb-cai-gib-sou&MS=wls&DU=km).
I was having a look on Google and a container ship only takes 20 days or so to get from China to Europe, and a military ship would be faster - so you don't need that much time to get ships into place.
And China to Europe by ship is a long way (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=hkg-sin-trv-dxb-cai-gib-sou&MS=wls&DU=km).
Thunderhawks
Apr 27, 08:32 AM
I'm glad they're fixing this "bug"
But their response is utter crap. They know it - and now everyone knows it.
As reports came out over a year ago about this - it's only after this tremendous bad press that they "found" it. Mhhhmmmm sure.
Even if one is "Apple friendly" when looking at this objectively that's a weak response.
Don't really care whether that is considered tracking or whatever word you want to find. Also, don't care if Apple upload or not!
When I turn something OFF, I need to be able to trust that it is OFF
Yes, we all have to realize we are constantly "logged" with IPs, cell towers,
EZ-pass etc. BUT there is no way they can make me believe this is a bug. We are almost at ios 5, so plenty of time to fix this.
It's a bad judgement on Apple's part, thinking that it doesn't cause any harm.
Well it does - to their reputation!
But their response is utter crap. They know it - and now everyone knows it.
As reports came out over a year ago about this - it's only after this tremendous bad press that they "found" it. Mhhhmmmm sure.
Even if one is "Apple friendly" when looking at this objectively that's a weak response.
Don't really care whether that is considered tracking or whatever word you want to find. Also, don't care if Apple upload or not!
When I turn something OFF, I need to be able to trust that it is OFF
Yes, we all have to realize we are constantly "logged" with IPs, cell towers,
EZ-pass etc. BUT there is no way they can make me believe this is a bug. We are almost at ios 5, so plenty of time to fix this.
It's a bad judgement on Apple's part, thinking that it doesn't cause any harm.
Well it does - to their reputation!
citizenzen
Mar 22, 11:00 AM
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition:
I'm confused. :confused:
What point is 5P trying to make here?
Is the fact that one list contains more countries by count make it superior to the second? Is that the only way to judge a coalition, by count?
That seems a little too simplistic to me.
For instance, I added up these two lists (after removing duplicates) according to how much the countries spend on their military ...
• Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003 ~ 152 billion
• Coalition - Libya - 2011 ~ 179 billion
I guess it's just how you want to look at it. :cool:
I'm confused. :confused:
What point is 5P trying to make here?
Is the fact that one list contains more countries by count make it superior to the second? Is that the only way to judge a coalition, by count?
That seems a little too simplistic to me.
For instance, I added up these two lists (after removing duplicates) according to how much the countries spend on their military ...
• Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003 ~ 152 billion
• Coalition - Libya - 2011 ~ 179 billion
I guess it's just how you want to look at it. :cool:
GLS
Mar 22, 01:42 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
It's the killer, alright...except this "killer" cannot do email or calendering on its own.
Link (http://macdailynews.com/2011/01/17/rim_playbook_will_ship_without_email_calendar_not_a_fully_standalone_device/)
How killer is a product that requires you to use another of the manufacturer's product in order to use two fundamental things such as email and a calendar?
Say all you want about an iPad, but it never needs to be tied to another device to access email....
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
It's the killer, alright...except this "killer" cannot do email or calendering on its own.
Link (http://macdailynews.com/2011/01/17/rim_playbook_will_ship_without_email_calendar_not_a_fully_standalone_device/)
How killer is a product that requires you to use another of the manufacturer's product in order to use two fundamental things such as email and a calendar?
Say all you want about an iPad, but it never needs to be tied to another device to access email....
MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 08:55 AM
I agree, increasing the number of cores can't be the only solution on long term. In my opinion it's time to rethink CPUs: Single, maybe dual core, high processing* power with extremly low power consumption, much lower than we have nowadays.
* Whatever that exactly means, I don't know.
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
* Whatever that exactly means, I don't know.
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
fraserdrew
Aug 6, 04:12 PM
Vista is also 6 months out, prob more. This is no different then when Apple released 10.0. There WAS a reason 10.1 was free to 10.0 users. Microsoft will get this cleaned up over the 18+ months it takes Apple to come out with 10.6. Leopard has to go the distance and I two have been using Vista inhouse since early Alpha's for internal app testing. Its come a long way. It still has a long way to go still but the core IS there. MS simply needs to bug fix the heck out of it. Which will happen within 2-4 months of release with SP1 and then SP2 another 6 months after that.
I'm not a long time apple user, and don't know about the classic to OS X transition, but i do know that 2 service packs and bug fixes every month did nothing to XP, hence my move to OS X. So, ok i assumed that this will be the same case with vista, but considering the fact that (i think) concept viruses have already been written, and that microsoft really are up against the clock; i think that for at least the first year vista will be hellish.
After that, ok, maybe things will change, but it seems to me that this isn't the biggest upgrade ever (i'm an end user, and mainly use PC's for web-browsing and school work, so i haven't seen any major good things in vista) and microsoft have struggled to get it out. (sorry kinda off topic)
I'm not a long time apple user, and don't know about the classic to OS X transition, but i do know that 2 service packs and bug fixes every month did nothing to XP, hence my move to OS X. So, ok i assumed that this will be the same case with vista, but considering the fact that (i think) concept viruses have already been written, and that microsoft really are up against the clock; i think that for at least the first year vista will be hellish.
After that, ok, maybe things will change, but it seems to me that this isn't the biggest upgrade ever (i'm an end user, and mainly use PC's for web-browsing and school work, so i haven't seen any major good things in vista) and microsoft have struggled to get it out. (sorry kinda off topic)
mactoday
Apr 6, 10:49 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/06/intel-launching-next-generation-macbook-air-processors/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/02/11/094654-mba.jpg
As reported by Fudzilla (http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/22323-new-17w-core-i7-king-brand-is-2657m) and HardMac (http://www.hardmac.com/news/2011/04/06/intel-to-launch-sandy-bridge-chips-that-could-be-found-in-the-new-macbook-air), Intel is about to launch its next generation Sandy Bridge ultra low voltage CPUs suitable for the MacBook Air.
Due to the MacBook Air's thin form factor, it has required the use of particularly low power CPUs from Intel. Apple has stuck with Core 2 Duo processors with a maximum Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 10-17W. Apple is believed to have continued to use this older processor design in order to keep NVIDIA's graphics chips powering their ultracompact notebook. Due to licensing disputes (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/10/nvidia-and-intel-settle-nvidia-still-prohibited-from-building-chipsets-for-newest-intel-processors/), NVIDIA was prohibited from building newer chipsets that supported Intel's newest processors.
With the release of Sandy Bridge, Intel upgraded the performance of their integrated graphics chipset. This was good enough (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/24/apple-launches-macbook-pros-with-thunderbolt-quad-core-cpus-amd-gpus/) for Apple to offer in their latest 13" MacBook Pros, so we expect it will be good enough for the upcoming MacBook Airs as well. Apple had been previously rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/11/macbook-air-sandy-bridge-update-in-june/) to be introducing the "Sandy Bridge" MacBook Airs this June.
HardMac pinpoints the Core i5 2537M (17W) as the possible chip to be used, at least in the 13" model:Meanwhile, the current 11" MacBook air uses an even lower power (10W) processor, but it's not clear how much power savings is offered by removing the need for the NVIDIA graphics chipset, as the Intel solution is integrated within the processor itself.
Article Link: Intel Launching Next Generation MacBook Air Processors (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/06/intel-launching-next-generation-macbook-air-processors/)
Actually there is Core i7 2657M at 1.6Ghz 2 Cores with HT (4 threads) with turbo up to 2.4Ghz. TDP 17Watt. Looks better chip for top model 13" MacBook Air. Don't you think so? :)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/02/11/094654-mba.jpg
As reported by Fudzilla (http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/22323-new-17w-core-i7-king-brand-is-2657m) and HardMac (http://www.hardmac.com/news/2011/04/06/intel-to-launch-sandy-bridge-chips-that-could-be-found-in-the-new-macbook-air), Intel is about to launch its next generation Sandy Bridge ultra low voltage CPUs suitable for the MacBook Air.
Due to the MacBook Air's thin form factor, it has required the use of particularly low power CPUs from Intel. Apple has stuck with Core 2 Duo processors with a maximum Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 10-17W. Apple is believed to have continued to use this older processor design in order to keep NVIDIA's graphics chips powering their ultracompact notebook. Due to licensing disputes (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/10/nvidia-and-intel-settle-nvidia-still-prohibited-from-building-chipsets-for-newest-intel-processors/), NVIDIA was prohibited from building newer chipsets that supported Intel's newest processors.
With the release of Sandy Bridge, Intel upgraded the performance of their integrated graphics chipset. This was good enough (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/24/apple-launches-macbook-pros-with-thunderbolt-quad-core-cpus-amd-gpus/) for Apple to offer in their latest 13" MacBook Pros, so we expect it will be good enough for the upcoming MacBook Airs as well. Apple had been previously rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/11/macbook-air-sandy-bridge-update-in-june/) to be introducing the "Sandy Bridge" MacBook Airs this June.
HardMac pinpoints the Core i5 2537M (17W) as the possible chip to be used, at least in the 13" model:Meanwhile, the current 11" MacBook air uses an even lower power (10W) processor, but it's not clear how much power savings is offered by removing the need for the NVIDIA graphics chipset, as the Intel solution is integrated within the processor itself.
Article Link: Intel Launching Next Generation MacBook Air Processors (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/06/intel-launching-next-generation-macbook-air-processors/)
Actually there is Core i7 2657M at 1.6Ghz 2 Cores with HT (4 threads) with turbo up to 2.4Ghz. TDP 17Watt. Looks better chip for top model 13" MacBook Air. Don't you think so? :)
jaxstate
Aug 11, 02:53 PM
We'll like a previous post said, they must release serveral phones, because i'm sure they want all the market they can get.
Perhaps. But thats about right for a Nokia N series with most of the features we have been mentioning.
Perhaps. But thats about right for a Nokia N series with most of the features we have been mentioning.
AppleScruff1
Apr 10, 02:49 AM
Rockwell doesn't exist anymore, it's Broadwell now ;) After that it will be Sky Lake (16nm) and Skymont (11nm).
If these latest names hold true. :D
If these latest names hold true. :D
amin
Aug 18, 10:28 PM
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac.
It may be obvious, but based on your earlier statement that a Conroe iMac would be "able to crunch through" apps faster than a Mac Pro, the obvious seemed worth identifying.
But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
*snip*
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
*snip*
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
It may be obvious, but based on your earlier statement that a Conroe iMac would be "able to crunch through" apps faster than a Mac Pro, the obvious seemed worth identifying.
But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
*snip*
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
*snip*
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
awesomebase
Mar 31, 07:16 PM
I would add I never understand the comparison of Smartphones running Android to smartphones running IOS.
Neither Google or Apple sell their phone operating systems, and the Android spectrum is made up of 50 handsets from 10 different manufacturers who are in direct competition with each other. They are not one big group working together to take on Apple. It makes absolutely zero sense to make that kind of comparison.
It is just as weird as loping off iPod and iPad IOS users...
If people want to compare smartphones, then compare actual sales of individual smartphones, each which only use one OS. People should not draw meaningless lines in the sand lumping all android based handsets together, because they are not together other than they run android. They might as well compare black phones to white phones.
I imagine if you made a chart of the top selling smartphones in the last 5 years, it would consist of the iPhone 4, the iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 3G and the iPhone.
Why not group smartphones by what kind of graphics chip they have or what type of memory chip they use? The OS is irrelevant. Nobody in the smartphone business is directly making money off any of these oses, it is a stupid way to categorize smart phones.
Of course it happens because if they didn't lump them together it would look absurd with Apple totally dominating the smart phone market with their latest phone every year while 100 android commodity phones all have tiny market shares just to get replaced by the next one.
How does HTC running android OS benefit or relate to a Motorola phone running android? It does not, at all.
From an engineering perspective and from a manufacturer's perspective, you're correct. But from an investment's perspective your argument doesn't work. Investors are concerned about Google's ability to profit from this and they compare "Platforms" to get an idea about where people are trending to. That is why despite BB growing, their stock is actually going to be in the trash in a couple of years if not sooner. Their "OS" is basically worthless... people don't value it as much as Android or iOS and as the phones that run those platforms continue to drop in price and become more capable, BB has no choice but to practically give their phones away to make their numbers (albeit at carrier-subsidized prices, but their prices and margins get severely eroded over time).
Just wanted to point that out... your logic is correct, just not applicable to all scenarios...
Neither Google or Apple sell their phone operating systems, and the Android spectrum is made up of 50 handsets from 10 different manufacturers who are in direct competition with each other. They are not one big group working together to take on Apple. It makes absolutely zero sense to make that kind of comparison.
It is just as weird as loping off iPod and iPad IOS users...
If people want to compare smartphones, then compare actual sales of individual smartphones, each which only use one OS. People should not draw meaningless lines in the sand lumping all android based handsets together, because they are not together other than they run android. They might as well compare black phones to white phones.
I imagine if you made a chart of the top selling smartphones in the last 5 years, it would consist of the iPhone 4, the iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 3G and the iPhone.
Why not group smartphones by what kind of graphics chip they have or what type of memory chip they use? The OS is irrelevant. Nobody in the smartphone business is directly making money off any of these oses, it is a stupid way to categorize smart phones.
Of course it happens because if they didn't lump them together it would look absurd with Apple totally dominating the smart phone market with their latest phone every year while 100 android commodity phones all have tiny market shares just to get replaced by the next one.
How does HTC running android OS benefit or relate to a Motorola phone running android? It does not, at all.
From an engineering perspective and from a manufacturer's perspective, you're correct. But from an investment's perspective your argument doesn't work. Investors are concerned about Google's ability to profit from this and they compare "Platforms" to get an idea about where people are trending to. That is why despite BB growing, their stock is actually going to be in the trash in a couple of years if not sooner. Their "OS" is basically worthless... people don't value it as much as Android or iOS and as the phones that run those platforms continue to drop in price and become more capable, BB has no choice but to practically give their phones away to make their numbers (albeit at carrier-subsidized prices, but their prices and margins get severely eroded over time).
Just wanted to point that out... your logic is correct, just not applicable to all scenarios...
povman
Aug 7, 05:46 PM
From Vista Help:
"Previous versions of files and folders are copies that Windows automatically saves as part of a restore point. Any file or folder that was modified since the last restore point was made (usually 24 hours earlier) is saved and made available as a previous version. You can use previous versions of files to restore files that you accidentally modified or deleted, or that were damaged."
I can use this now but without childish animations. Simple right-click the folder and select "restore previous versions".
from your description, the 'restore previous files' thing is more like backup&restore
If apple really is using zfs in leopard, then time machine is going to be a lot more than just saving files and restoring them.... It's more like 'hey we got some extra disk space. instead of overwriting this file, lets write it somewhere else so the old version is still there :D'
i.e. ALL versions of all files are saved until you run out of space, then you start to lose old stuff. Well i guess there might be some modifications so it only applies to certain files or something...
i do hope they lose the space stars background on it though... replace it with a rotating spiral and i'd be happy :D
"Previous versions of files and folders are copies that Windows automatically saves as part of a restore point. Any file or folder that was modified since the last restore point was made (usually 24 hours earlier) is saved and made available as a previous version. You can use previous versions of files to restore files that you accidentally modified or deleted, or that were damaged."
I can use this now but without childish animations. Simple right-click the folder and select "restore previous versions".
from your description, the 'restore previous files' thing is more like backup&restore
If apple really is using zfs in leopard, then time machine is going to be a lot more than just saving files and restoring them.... It's more like 'hey we got some extra disk space. instead of overwriting this file, lets write it somewhere else so the old version is still there :D'
i.e. ALL versions of all files are saved until you run out of space, then you start to lose old stuff. Well i guess there might be some modifications so it only applies to certain files or something...
i do hope they lose the space stars background on it though... replace it with a rotating spiral and i'd be happy :D
JAT
Apr 6, 03:51 PM
I guess it wouldn't hurt their future sales to announce international release dates. Several people I know have ordered or bought an iPad 2 simply because it is available (even with order backlogs) compared to Honeycomb tablets.
Here in continental Europe, all I saw so far was an announcement for the second quarter, which can slip to whenever...
Those of you who already got it - is it worth the wait?
Every Costco here has had Xooms in abundance since the first shipment. I'd say availability is good, interest...not so much.
Costco probably shouldn't have dropped Apple, wonder if they think about that.
Here in continental Europe, all I saw so far was an announcement for the second quarter, which can slip to whenever...
Those of you who already got it - is it worth the wait?
Every Costco here has had Xooms in abundance since the first shipment. I'd say availability is good, interest...not so much.
Costco probably shouldn't have dropped Apple, wonder if they think about that.
Blue Velvet
Apr 27, 03:06 PM
Amazing that anyone ever wonders why conservatives never stay around these parts, your level of debate is at rock bottom.
I'm quite sure that my rare posts in this forum have little to do with what you and your army think of this forum...besides, my milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.
I saw it on Drudge
Now there's a reliable source. Instead of me taking more time to explain it to someone who hasn't got the slightest idea of what he's talking about, I'll go one better. I'll let a conservative explain it:
We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.
The PDF is composed of multiple images. That�s correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they�re being called, aren�t layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They�re not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.
What�s plausible is that somewhere along the way � from the scanning device to the PDF-creation software, both of which can perform OCR (optical character recognition) � these partial/pseudo-text images were created and saved. What�s not plausible is that the government spent all this time manufacturing Obama�s birth certificate only to commit the laughably rookie mistake of exporting the layers from Photoshop, or whatever photo editing software they are meant to have used. It�s likely that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner. Let�s leave it at that.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding
Now are we done with this useless nonsense?
I'm quite sure that my rare posts in this forum have little to do with what you and your army think of this forum...besides, my milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.
I saw it on Drudge
Now there's a reliable source. Instead of me taking more time to explain it to someone who hasn't got the slightest idea of what he's talking about, I'll go one better. I'll let a conservative explain it:
We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.
The PDF is composed of multiple images. That�s correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they�re being called, aren�t layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They�re not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.
What�s plausible is that somewhere along the way � from the scanning device to the PDF-creation software, both of which can perform OCR (optical character recognition) � these partial/pseudo-text images were created and saved. What�s not plausible is that the government spent all this time manufacturing Obama�s birth certificate only to commit the laughably rookie mistake of exporting the layers from Photoshop, or whatever photo editing software they are meant to have used. It�s likely that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner. Let�s leave it at that.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding
Now are we done with this useless nonsense?