bousozoku
Aug 7, 05:27 PM
I'm glad that Leopard will be completely (that's what they say, at least) 64-bit. I'm not sure why it's important to go on about the applications as if they were important to the operating system itself. Increased integration like what was displayed would cause the anti-trust machine to whip into action, if it was Microsoft instead of Apple.
Time Machine is not exactly revolutionary, considering that there were a few 3rd party products available--Rewind comes to mind--that journaled changes and allowed them to be restored. Still, it should stop the various threads "I accidentally deleted..." :)
Hopefully, the features not mentioned will include a better kernel that actually performs well. It would be nice to see operating system benchmarks that don't make me cringe when I look at the Mac OS X results.
Xcode version 3.0 looks good but they still haven't provided many details.
Time Machine is not exactly revolutionary, considering that there were a few 3rd party products available--Rewind comes to mind--that journaled changes and allowed them to be restored. Still, it should stop the various threads "I accidentally deleted..." :)
Hopefully, the features not mentioned will include a better kernel that actually performs well. It would be nice to see operating system benchmarks that don't make me cringe when I look at the Mac OS X results.
Xcode version 3.0 looks good but they still haven't provided many details.
aafuss1
Aug 6, 05:48 PM
What about TV Show downloads in the UK? Pleeeeaaaase!!! :rolleyes:
Looking foward to these Mac Pros though, my Dad is definatley going to buy one. :D
Thanks, Joe.
That would be good-if BBC signs up. Aussie's already have TV shows (for $1.99)-but on the Nine Network's nineMSN (http://ninemsn.com.au)site.
Keeping track of WWDC time-use the Extra-Clocks. Not as accurate as a internet updating clock, but does the job for me.
iPod shuffle-not being updated (because of the nano),but at least Apple gave those owners a volume limit.
Looking foward to these Mac Pros though, my Dad is definatley going to buy one. :D
Thanks, Joe.
That would be good-if BBC signs up. Aussie's already have TV shows (for $1.99)-but on the Nine Network's nineMSN (http://ninemsn.com.au)site.
Keeping track of WWDC time-use the Extra-Clocks. Not as accurate as a internet updating clock, but does the job for me.
iPod shuffle-not being updated (because of the nano),but at least Apple gave those owners a volume limit.
Billy Boo Bob
Nov 28, 11:02 PM
1 Random artist finds inspiration and writes a song
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
SuperCachetes
Mar 5, 07:30 PM
The same model applies to the 'church'.
They are on the wane, and need new conscripts.
Gays are less likely to give them that.
That's (sadly) believable. See, now you're talking. I knew you didn't always pop round just to throw a cheeky non sequitur into the works. ;)
They are on the wane, and need new conscripts.
Gays are less likely to give them that.
That's (sadly) believable. See, now you're talking. I knew you didn't always pop round just to throw a cheeky non sequitur into the works. ;)
shawnce
Jul 20, 11:55 AM
He was referring to my post in which I was referring to MWSF '07, not the WWDC.
Ah I see ... thought it was about WWDC 2006 my bad.
I still don't think we'll se a full release at MWSF but I think the date will be announced.
Yeah I don't think we will see 10.5 released at MWSF '07 (thinking CQ2 2007) but after I get back from WWDC I may have a different understanding of the current state of 10.5.
Ah I see ... thought it was about WWDC 2006 my bad.
I still don't think we'll se a full release at MWSF but I think the date will be announced.
Yeah I don't think we will see 10.5 released at MWSF '07 (thinking CQ2 2007) but after I get back from WWDC I may have a different understanding of the current state of 10.5.
parapup
Apr 11, 11:46 AM
Just picked up a Atrix 4G and on my way checked out the iPhone 4 - it looks decidedly antique and bland in front of the competition - Apple waiting until September would mean they rely awful lot on people's stupidity to keep buying it for 8 more months!
That ain't gonna happen - we will see a dual core iPhone 5 by June shipping by July or something (followed by shortages and long waits.)!
That ain't gonna happen - we will see a dual core iPhone 5 by June shipping by July or something (followed by shortages and long waits.)!
28monkeys
Apr 7, 10:32 PM
Obviously you know little about retail and accounting.
Obviously you know nothing about retail.
Obviously you know nothing about retail.
Mr. Retrofire
Apr 6, 07:07 AM
I doubt Apple will ship a new version of FCP before they ship lion, there are simply no real video editor APIs in Snow Leopard that are capable of 64 bit, QT Kit is a joke.
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
The functions inside FCP do not need the OS support. Apple can install private frameworks, and they do it already, for their own applications. So i think they will support SL.
AV Foundation brings back QT7-features to QTX. Apple uses AV Foundation in the new QTX-player of Lion.
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
The functions inside FCP do not need the OS support. Apple can install private frameworks, and they do it already, for their own applications. So i think they will support SL.
AV Foundation brings back QT7-features to QTX. Apple uses AV Foundation in the new QTX-player of Lion.
theBB
Mar 31, 07:13 PM
If you're going to licence your project as open source, then you do actually have to release the source. I know there's often a delay with commercial products. I suppose the tolerance of the open source community depends on the reason and the amount of time the code is held back.
Well, the rules for GPL say you need to release the source code along with the software and you actually have to offer them through the same channel, so that you cannot make it practically impossible for people to get to the source even if it is theoretically available. Of course, GPL is not the only "open source" license. This is Google's playground, so they get to define it any way they wish.
Well, the rules for GPL say you need to release the source code along with the software and you actually have to offer them through the same channel, so that you cannot make it practically impossible for people to get to the source even if it is theoretically available. Of course, GPL is not the only "open source" license. This is Google's playground, so they get to define it any way they wish.
Moyank24
Apr 27, 12:02 PM
I'm not a birther. But I would love to know why the certificate looks new when the president is nearly 50. Now I'm about five months older than he, my original birth certificate has faded. The certificate he produced clearly isn't the original. Or if it is the original, it's astoundingly well-preserved.
He hasn't been carrying this around for 50 years. Did you actually read the article?
The White House also released a letter from the president on April 22 requesting two certified copies of his original certificate of live birth. Also released was a letter from Loretta Fuddy, Hawaii's director of health, approving the request.
The president's personal counsel, Judith Corley, traveled to Hawaii to pick up the documents and carried them back to Washington on a plane. The documents arrived at the White House around 5 p.m. Tuesday.
He hasn't been carrying this around for 50 years. Did you actually read the article?
The White House also released a letter from the president on April 22 requesting two certified copies of his original certificate of live birth. Also released was a letter from Loretta Fuddy, Hawaii's director of health, approving the request.
The president's personal counsel, Judith Corley, traveled to Hawaii to pick up the documents and carried them back to Washington on a plane. The documents arrived at the White House around 5 p.m. Tuesday.
gnasher729
Aug 17, 03:42 AM
I think movie editing depends a lot on the speed of the disk subsystem. After all Mini DV is 12GB per hour. That's a of data. When yo "scrub" a shot all that data has to move off the disk and onto the video card. Even with 16MB of RAM not much of the video data can be help in RAM. So the G5 and Intel machine have disks that are about the same speed. Speed of a disk is measured by how fast the bit fly under the read/write head not the interface speed. So I am not surprized the Intel Mac Pro is not hugly faster for video.
Mini DV is 3,600,000 bytes per second. That is nothing. That is just slightly above what a wireless network will do.
Mini DV is 3,600,000 bytes per second. That is nothing. That is just slightly above what a wireless network will do.
Silentwave
Aug 6, 10:19 AM
Well...I've used and ENJOYED iMac G4 for five years which is still going strong by the way. I just can't help but wonder how stupid and childish it is to expect that Apple will upgrade it already awesome MBP. The Merom CPU has very minor perforformance benefit over Yonah until Santa Rosa is out next year. It has double the L2 catch, 140M more transistors and 3 Watt/hour more cons (34W/H) than Yonah (31W/H). Conroe with faster FSB is a totally different story. So I personally have nothing against those poor souls expecting new notebooks but sympothy.
The benchmarks show it actually has better performance with almost exactly the same battery life.
I'm positive Apple will go merom ASAP simply because their competition will, and it is a 64 bit chip.
The benchmarks show it actually has better performance with almost exactly the same battery life.
I'm positive Apple will go merom ASAP simply because their competition will, and it is a 64 bit chip.
blackburn
Mar 26, 05:45 AM
I still don't get it, why do we apple users have to pay for os updates? The hardware is already expensive as hell.
Cygnus311
Aug 27, 12:04 PM
Because, just as there are Mac fanboys, there are also Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony fanboys. As much as we'd like to think our platform of choice is clearly the best, in all actually, each one has something unique to offer that the other may lack.
But that doesn't make Nintendo (or Microsoft or Sony) suck. Fanboys just make themselves suck by being fanboys. :)
But that doesn't make Nintendo (or Microsoft or Sony) suck. Fanboys just make themselves suck by being fanboys. :)
toddybody
Apr 6, 01:09 PM
People who keep waiting for the next rev will never buy a computer. The "right time to buy" is probably not until the Macbook Air has Skymont in 2015. :p
Oh come on dude:) Theres certainly a balance...for instance, youd have been crazy to buy a MBP a 3 months ago (unless of course you NEEDED it). Now, I totally dig your criticism that some folks take that too far.
Oh come on dude:) Theres certainly a balance...for instance, youd have been crazy to buy a MBP a 3 months ago (unless of course you NEEDED it). Now, I totally dig your criticism that some folks take that too far.
manu chao
Apr 27, 08:47 AM
But if that happens, they already know everything there is to know about you anyway and have no need to check your Wi-Fi database. They've got your Address Book info, your bank site links and cookies, your email, your personal letters, etc.
The point is that I save on my computer what I consider the computer to be safe enough for, which includes, eg, my e-mails. I simply would like to be given the choice to decide whether I want to save certain things on my computer or not. With that database, Apple did not give me the choice because it did not inform me about this database (if it had told me, I might have run a cron job to delete it, excluded it from my TM backups, encrypted my iPhone backups, etc.).
The point is that I save on my computer what I consider the computer to be safe enough for, which includes, eg, my e-mails. I simply would like to be given the choice to decide whether I want to save certain things on my computer or not. With that database, Apple did not give me the choice because it did not inform me about this database (if it had told me, I might have run a cron job to delete it, excluded it from my TM backups, encrypted my iPhone backups, etc.).
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 19, 02:21 PM
Sigh, you're entirely missing the point of this case. No one's arguing that there's been a grid of icons before, it's just that Samsung went the extra step. See, Android itself doesn't have a near-identical desktop, but TouchWiz does. TouchWiz is what you see here, the icons have been made into squares (like the iPhone), there's now a Dock with frequently used apps with a grey background to distinguish it (like the iPhone), it has a black background (meh) but it uses white dots to note the page it's on (like the iPhone). They went the extra mile to provide an iPhone-like experience for their Android devices.
It appears from the F700's standpoint though the natural progression became TouchWiz.
It appears from the F700's standpoint though the natural progression became TouchWiz.
vnowarita
Apr 11, 02:48 PM
QFT
Apple may innovate and capture an audience at the start of the race, but boy do they sure tapper off in the long stretch and lose market share over time. They should really be pumping out multiple iPhone versions in 6 month increments...same for the iPad. Upgrades don't need to be major, but enough to keep people on the hook for their products.
+1
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!!! They have the resources to do better than this. Unless total domination is not their focus.
Apple may innovate and capture an audience at the start of the race, but boy do they sure tapper off in the long stretch and lose market share over time. They should really be pumping out multiple iPhone versions in 6 month increments...same for the iPad. Upgrades don't need to be major, but enough to keep people on the hook for their products.
+1
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!!! They have the resources to do better than this. Unless total domination is not their focus.
Liske
Aug 17, 02:42 PM
I have a new 3.0 Intel- just letting you know they are not as close as Rob's test under real world performance. Adobe camera raw really screamed on my G5 and is noticibly slower and a bit buggy on my new Mac Pro. Start up is alot slower, etc, etc. He only tested MP aware processes which isn't the whole picture.
The Photo Retouch artist test puts the Mac Pro 3.0 about 33% slower than the quad G5- but I think that test is skewered to the G5s liking. I think it's somewhere in the real world realm of 12% slower than my G5 quad. Not quite as good under Rosetta [5%?] that Rob posts, but not quite as bad as some other tester's results. The finder and other apps are noticebly faster, even against the fast quad.
I went for the mac pro as a web designer able to run windoze now. CS2 gets some but not alot of excersize. Other comparisons- the storage is awesome, super easy, super quiet. This machine is about 75% the noise of my G5, add the quiet firmtek 2 drive SATA i ran with the quad, and the Mac Pro is about 50% quieter. [By the way if anyone needs a 2 drive firmtek external SATA II case with PCIe card and cables, it is looking for a new home now. It was a great case for the g5 and is about 6 months old- http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/articles/firmtek/2en2/]
My 2 cents!
mac Pro 3.0
3bg ram
2 x 2 drive stripe raids
Std graphics card.
The Photo Retouch artist test puts the Mac Pro 3.0 about 33% slower than the quad G5- but I think that test is skewered to the G5s liking. I think it's somewhere in the real world realm of 12% slower than my G5 quad. Not quite as good under Rosetta [5%?] that Rob posts, but not quite as bad as some other tester's results. The finder and other apps are noticebly faster, even against the fast quad.
I went for the mac pro as a web designer able to run windoze now. CS2 gets some but not alot of excersize. Other comparisons- the storage is awesome, super easy, super quiet. This machine is about 75% the noise of my G5, add the quiet firmtek 2 drive SATA i ran with the quad, and the Mac Pro is about 50% quieter. [By the way if anyone needs a 2 drive firmtek external SATA II case with PCIe card and cables, it is looking for a new home now. It was a great case for the g5 and is about 6 months old- http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/articles/firmtek/2en2/]
My 2 cents!
mac Pro 3.0
3bg ram
2 x 2 drive stripe raids
Std graphics card.
shelterpaw
Jul 20, 10:43 AM
We just need most software to support that efficiently now.
It certainly will help. Though most pro apps are optimized for mulit-processors. I know much of Adobe/Macromedia's line is, well I'm not sure about the macromeida products. Apples Pro apps are and most of the DAW's are optimized, like Ableton 5.2/6.0, Cubase, Logic, Pro Tools.
It will be great is to see games optimized for this, which I do believe will happen now that most OEM's will be sporting mulitiple cores in the future.
It certainly will help. Though most pro apps are optimized for mulit-processors. I know much of Adobe/Macromedia's line is, well I'm not sure about the macromeida products. Apples Pro apps are and most of the DAW's are optimized, like Ableton 5.2/6.0, Cubase, Logic, Pro Tools.
It will be great is to see games optimized for this, which I do believe will happen now that most OEM's will be sporting mulitiple cores in the future.
ABernardoJr
Apr 8, 12:39 AM
When you are as HUGE as best buy, and you are selling a product as huge as the iPad, it makes sense to create a demand. People do this all the time. You can't get it now, so the second it becomes available to you, you buy it in fear that you might have to wait another month. This happens all the time with a lot of products.
How does that create demand? Instead of actually getting the sale, you deny a sale and hope it "creates demand" so that they'll come back and buy it in fear? Especially considering that they could have just purchased it in the first place and avoided the whole issue. Actually selling out the product and then having no more available in stock would create demand AND generate revenue. Doing what they did would generate SOME revenue and likely cause customers to look elsewhere for iPads.
Edit: This isn't to say that I don't recognize the concept of reaching quotas for the day and saving products for the next day's quota. That's a different argument. What I'm referring to is that this is likely not about demand but about selfishly wanting to meet quotas and turning away customers in the process. Not creating demand. It's immoral, but business/retail and morality don't always work so well together.
How does that create demand? Instead of actually getting the sale, you deny a sale and hope it "creates demand" so that they'll come back and buy it in fear? Especially considering that they could have just purchased it in the first place and avoided the whole issue. Actually selling out the product and then having no more available in stock would create demand AND generate revenue. Doing what they did would generate SOME revenue and likely cause customers to look elsewhere for iPads.
Edit: This isn't to say that I don't recognize the concept of reaching quotas for the day and saving products for the next day's quota. That's a different argument. What I'm referring to is that this is likely not about demand but about selfishly wanting to meet quotas and turning away customers in the process. Not creating demand. It's immoral, but business/retail and morality don't always work so well together.
Banjhiyi
Mar 26, 07:39 AM
It must be conspiracy right. Right.
It couldn't just be an honest mistake as a result of a stretched development team.
No. It must be the same guys who shot Kennedy messing up all our tech. It's probably something to do with the Chinese.
I kinda covered that in 'sloppy QA or declining standards' but don't let that get in the way of a good flaming.
As you were.
It couldn't just be an honest mistake as a result of a stretched development team.
No. It must be the same guys who shot Kennedy messing up all our tech. It's probably something to do with the Chinese.
I kinda covered that in 'sloppy QA or declining standards' but don't let that get in the way of a good flaming.
As you were.
Unspeaked
Aug 11, 11:14 AM
G5 iPhones next Tuesday.
Silentwave
Aug 6, 10:18 AM
If you look at the banner pictures from WWDC 2006 you can see that the PowerMac / Mac Pro still lookes the same ...
Does this mean that the Mac Pro will look like the PowerMac or that there wont be any release of Mac Pro at the WWDC 2006 ... ?
No, that just means that if you'd been looking at hthe other threads, you'd know that there is *nothing* new on the banner- they won't be spoiling any of the stevenote's surprises! Apple isn't dumb.
Does this mean that the Mac Pro will look like the PowerMac or that there wont be any release of Mac Pro at the WWDC 2006 ... ?
No, that just means that if you'd been looking at hthe other threads, you'd know that there is *nothing* new on the banner- they won't be spoiling any of the stevenote's surprises! Apple isn't dumb.
