thisisahughes
Apr 13, 04:45 AM
wonder what the price is. Actually, not sure if I want to know.
exactly.
exactly.
tjcampbell
Jun 6, 08:59 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
What's the big deal! Imagine if he downloaded the app, learned everything, passed the exam. Wonderboy Lawyer!!!!!!
What's the big deal! Imagine if he downloaded the app, learned everything, passed the exam. Wonderboy Lawyer!!!!!!
disisdave
Apr 13, 08:50 PM
I saw one in the wild.
Employee at an AT&T store in Charlotte, NC had one last week when I stopped in to purchase a car charger. He said they are probably going to be out soon, but mentioned that he is having problems with the proximity sensor. he said the screen display is staying on when he is on calls and that his cheek/ear are activating display controls. Could it be an issue with the bright white reflecting too much light into the sensor?
Employee at an AT&T store in Charlotte, NC had one last week when I stopped in to purchase a car charger. He said they are probably going to be out soon, but mentioned that he is having problems with the proximity sensor. he said the screen display is staying on when he is on calls and that his cheek/ear are activating display controls. Could it be an issue with the bright white reflecting too much light into the sensor?
DrJohnnyN
May 3, 07:42 AM
Cool!
28monkeys
Apr 28, 07:17 PM
Hey, at least it's white.
KnightWRX
Apr 16, 04:15 PM
Why would you need 64 bit for a MBA? To fly off those huge sample libraries that the processor would lock up over?
64 bit is only for massive memory allocations and a MBA doesn't even have the CPU to pull it off... :rolleyes:
Well, for starters, to prevent the damn year 2038 problem.
Seriously though, there are a few benefits of running in 64 bit mode even on older processors. memory mapped files for bigger files that would otherwise use up more than the 32 bit address space are now possible and 64 bit registers can speed up a few types of programs, even those that don't deal with very large datasets.
By your line of thinking, who needs 64 bit at all ? My 233 mhz UltraSparc II should have just been a 32bit processor. :rolleyes:
The plain fact is the C2D is a capable x86-64 processor, there's no good reason to hold it back with a 32 bit kernel.
64 bit is only for massive memory allocations and a MBA doesn't even have the CPU to pull it off... :rolleyes:
Well, for starters, to prevent the damn year 2038 problem.
Seriously though, there are a few benefits of running in 64 bit mode even on older processors. memory mapped files for bigger files that would otherwise use up more than the 32 bit address space are now possible and 64 bit registers can speed up a few types of programs, even those that don't deal with very large datasets.
By your line of thinking, who needs 64 bit at all ? My 233 mhz UltraSparc II should have just been a 32bit processor. :rolleyes:
The plain fact is the C2D is a capable x86-64 processor, there's no good reason to hold it back with a 32 bit kernel.
pacmans
Oct 26, 08:16 PM
Canon EOS 7D!
samcolak
Apr 22, 11:41 AM
Uh ? GNU is a project, not a license. GNU stands for GNU's Not Unix. It includes things like the GNU Libc, Bash, Emacs, a full OpenSTEP implementation known as GNUStep and various fileutils. It also includes licensing, like the GPL for instance.
This GNU project that includes amongst many things Bash and the GPL license were launched by the Free Software Foundation and Richard M. Stallman as part of the man's vision of software freedom.
Don't correct me if you aren't at least going to provide factual and true information. Again, I know what I meant and I know this stuff as I've been dabbling in it for the last 12 years if not more.
Here are some links you might find interesting if you really want to learn about this stuff, none of these will be on Apple.com (please don't use Apple.com to prove points about Free Software) :
GNU GPL : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
List of GNU projects : http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/ (notice Bash)
An explanation of the GNU project : http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu.html
So to correct your post which attempted to correct mine : Bash is a GNU sub-project that is licensed under the GPL. Thank you, I knew all of that already. And technically, you're quite wrong, every GPL package that Apple ships is under GNU licensing since the GPL is a GNU project license.
I can read Wiki too...
GPL is a license. GNU is a foundation. I corrected as to the licensing terminology..
Per your 12 years, trump - my 25...
This GNU project that includes amongst many things Bash and the GPL license were launched by the Free Software Foundation and Richard M. Stallman as part of the man's vision of software freedom.
Don't correct me if you aren't at least going to provide factual and true information. Again, I know what I meant and I know this stuff as I've been dabbling in it for the last 12 years if not more.
Here are some links you might find interesting if you really want to learn about this stuff, none of these will be on Apple.com (please don't use Apple.com to prove points about Free Software) :
GNU GPL : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
List of GNU projects : http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/ (notice Bash)
An explanation of the GNU project : http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu.html
So to correct your post which attempted to correct mine : Bash is a GNU sub-project that is licensed under the GPL. Thank you, I knew all of that already. And technically, you're quite wrong, every GPL package that Apple ships is under GNU licensing since the GPL is a GNU project license.
I can read Wiki too...
GPL is a license. GNU is a foundation. I corrected as to the licensing terminology..
Per your 12 years, trump - my 25...
Shockre
Sep 16, 05:38 AM
macbook pro 13" razer orochi, incase neoperene plus, mobileme :)
i just have to find seagate momentus xt somewhere..
http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/7227/dsc01045m.jpg http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/9725/dsc01047pz.jpg http://images.apple.com/mobileme/images/overview_mobileme_20100622.png
i just have to find seagate momentus xt somewhere..
http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/7227/dsc01045m.jpg http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/9725/dsc01047pz.jpg http://images.apple.com/mobileme/images/overview_mobileme_20100622.png
WestonHarvey1
Apr 22, 09:46 AM
I still haven't seen the "killer app" that makes this higher mobile speed something I can't wait another year for. I know that's not the smartest way of looking at it - the higher speeds bring the innovations we haven't imagined yet. But I'm not seeing them on the Android platform, either.
It seems to mostly benefit tethering - but tethering benefits other devices and not the mobile handled experience.
Fast access to these new cloud music storage services is interesting, but the data caps practically kill their usefulness.
It seems to mostly benefit tethering - but tethering benefits other devices and not the mobile handled experience.
Fast access to these new cloud music storage services is interesting, but the data caps practically kill their usefulness.
Liquorpuki
Feb 25, 04:13 PM
And the train wreck continues....
http://blogs.forbes.com/dorothypomerantz/2011/02/25/two-and-a-half-men-canceled-after-charlie-sheens-latest-rants/
Dude that's hilarious. Here's the difference between Mel Gibson and Charlie Sheen. When Mel Gibson has a meltdown, he turns into a racist a-hole. When Charlie Sheen has a meltdown, he sounds like he just high.
http://blogs.forbes.com/dorothypomerantz/2011/02/25/two-and-a-half-men-canceled-after-charlie-sheens-latest-rants/
Dude that's hilarious. Here's the difference between Mel Gibson and Charlie Sheen. When Mel Gibson has a meltdown, he turns into a racist a-hole. When Charlie Sheen has a meltdown, he sounds like he just high.
MartiNZ
Mar 31, 02:31 PM
Not sure if it has been said, but, changes for iChat - any chance of proper MSN support? I never got the jabber workaround to work reliably for long, but it would be sooo nice to be able to use the built-in app, just like when they finally did Exchange support in Mail. I can dream.
NinjaHERO
Mar 31, 10:43 AM
Not a fan of the look. But the current Ical is lacking in functions I would like to have. So if the new look comes with new options and features, I'll happily deal with it.
Demoman
Jul 10, 12:15 PM
At $79 a year it will probably be 5 years before the program moves to a commonly useful level where it may have the ability to replace MS Office. The very casual Word Processor user will not have to wait very long, maybe Pages 3 or Pages 4. With the 5 X $79 = $395 we move into the price range of the non-educational price of MS Office. But for the heavy Office user, 5 years may not be long enough.
Apple would used to calculate the Real Total Cost of Ownership for Macs. They would include after purchase service & support costs. We need to do the same for iWork. iWork is not a simple $79 program useless you wait for the version you want, purchase it & then add no updates that have a purchase price. If you want a slimmed down program purchase now, but have few features to give few benefits. If you want a more complete program just wait for the 5th or 6th upgrade. But this way you have no program to use for another 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 years. Anything else requires multiplying the $79 by by a 2, 4, 5 or even larger number to get the true cost of iWork.
Bill the TaxMan
I use pages exclusively as do all of the workers who are testing Apple at my business. After a short learning curve, everyone likes it and it is more than capable right now. You are really coming off as an Apple ball-buster. All I read from you is negative Apple. Are you collecting your checks from Redmond???
Apple would used to calculate the Real Total Cost of Ownership for Macs. They would include after purchase service & support costs. We need to do the same for iWork. iWork is not a simple $79 program useless you wait for the version you want, purchase it & then add no updates that have a purchase price. If you want a slimmed down program purchase now, but have few features to give few benefits. If you want a more complete program just wait for the 5th or 6th upgrade. But this way you have no program to use for another 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 years. Anything else requires multiplying the $79 by by a 2, 4, 5 or even larger number to get the true cost of iWork.
Bill the TaxMan
I use pages exclusively as do all of the workers who are testing Apple at my business. After a short learning curve, everyone likes it and it is more than capable right now. You are really coming off as an Apple ball-buster. All I read from you is negative Apple. Are you collecting your checks from Redmond???
jameshopkins
Aug 15, 10:12 AM
Whats happening with iChat, are they getting it to work with MSN Messenger networks like with AOL?
I have just switched to Mac, and it's annoying I cant Video Conference with any MSN Messenger users (MSN Messenger on Mac doesnt support it). iChat is awesome but I have no contacts, lol. Anyone know of any other way, I have tried AdiumX and looked into Jabber.
I have just switched to Mac, and it's annoying I cant Video Conference with any MSN Messenger users (MSN Messenger on Mac doesnt support it). iChat is awesome but I have no contacts, lol. Anyone know of any other way, I have tried AdiumX and looked into Jabber.
shadowkhas
Oct 18, 04:33 PM
1,610,000 Macs and 8,729,000 iPods were shipped this quarter representing a 30 percent growth in Macs and 35 percent growth in iPods over the year-ago quarter.
Apple shipped 1,610,000 Macintosh� computers and 8,729,000 iPods during the quarter, representing 30 percent growth in Macs and 35 percent growth in iPods over the year-ago quarter.
Restated much?
Anyway, good news. :)
Apple shipped 1,610,000 Macintosh� computers and 8,729,000 iPods during the quarter, representing 30 percent growth in Macs and 35 percent growth in iPods over the year-ago quarter.
Restated much?
Anyway, good news. :)
digitalnicotine
Jan 31, 04:37 PM
Say hello to Odin...
What a cutie! :)
What a cutie! :)
Wyro
Apr 14, 11:12 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5309/5620540991_9d7f8ab436_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/61246410@N06/5620540991/)
knownikko
Apr 22, 06:13 PM
do you know how dumb that is?
Yeah, it's totally dumb to think that a well-versed tech editor trying to launch a new company would know that the quickest way to get some eyeballs on pages is to spend hours making a pretty (controversial) iphone mockup and attaching it to an Apple rumor.
Ridiculously dumb.
Impossibly dumb.
Can't imagine what sort of dumb people would even suggest that.
So dumb.
Yeah, it's totally dumb to think that a well-versed tech editor trying to launch a new company would know that the quickest way to get some eyeballs on pages is to spend hours making a pretty (controversial) iphone mockup and attaching it to an Apple rumor.
Ridiculously dumb.
Impossibly dumb.
Can't imagine what sort of dumb people would even suggest that.
So dumb.
KingYaba
Jun 7, 03:51 AM
I think gettin' a head start on the bar exam would be a great use of that kid's time. He could be our next Supreme Court justice. :p
Doylem
Apr 3, 02:32 PM
Took my camera out yesterday for the first time in about four months: a bit like getting back in a car when you haven't driven for a while, to find you're thinking about something you used to do automatically...
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/7677/penp.jpg
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/7677/penp.jpg
jtara
Apr 14, 11:14 AM
Interesting possibility. It would be extremely difficult to emulate a complete iOS device (custom ASICs and all). But Apple could emulate just enough ARM instructions to emulate an app that was compiled by Xcode & LLVM (which would limit the way ARM instructions were generated), and used only legal public iOS APIs (instead of emulating hardware and all the registers), which could be translated in Cocoa APIs to display on a Mac OS X machine.
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
SockRolid
Apr 14, 12:55 PM
Whatever "ix.Mac.MarketingName" is, I'll bet a benjamin that Eric Schmidt is clueless about it.
kalafalas
Sep 30, 11:43 PM
Having worked very closely with the head engineers of AT&T, I do feel sorry for them. As someone stated earlier, that are spending billions to upgrade the network, but all that money will only meet current demand in some areas. The iPhone is such an incredible success that AT&T never had a chance. The same would be said about Verizon had they got the exclusive contract. If you want to lay the blame at anyones feet, it should be Apple. They should have made a CDMA version and split the load between the networks.
actually, you are 100% wrong, if you read your history, you would know that apple did everything in there power to get it on as many carriers as possible for this exact reason. and the only company that would take the phone and give 100% control of the operating system was AT&T, and that was under the circumstances of a exclusive contract. And apple did the correct thing, because can you imagine what a iPhone would be if it was tightly controlled by the carrier? i can. its called a LG dare. and every other ****** touch screen phone out there.
Apple had the correct idea, split the load onto as many carriers as possible. but that couldn't happen, because the carriers are bitched greedy bastards, all of them, AT&T being the least bad of all of them, letting apple have control in the first place.
And as for making a CDMA version, thats pure stupid. because thats a dead technology that very few companies use, and only in one country. everywhere else, they use HSDPA, example europe, where the iPhone is available on many carriers, all using HSDPA standard, and there having 0 problems.
So no, Apple is not to blame, they did everything in there power to make it as perfect as possible, and they did. AT&T is to blame, for being greedy and only wanting this phone on there network only.
actually, you are 100% wrong, if you read your history, you would know that apple did everything in there power to get it on as many carriers as possible for this exact reason. and the only company that would take the phone and give 100% control of the operating system was AT&T, and that was under the circumstances of a exclusive contract. And apple did the correct thing, because can you imagine what a iPhone would be if it was tightly controlled by the carrier? i can. its called a LG dare. and every other ****** touch screen phone out there.
Apple had the correct idea, split the load onto as many carriers as possible. but that couldn't happen, because the carriers are bitched greedy bastards, all of them, AT&T being the least bad of all of them, letting apple have control in the first place.
And as for making a CDMA version, thats pure stupid. because thats a dead technology that very few companies use, and only in one country. everywhere else, they use HSDPA, example europe, where the iPhone is available on many carriers, all using HSDPA standard, and there having 0 problems.
So no, Apple is not to blame, they did everything in there power to make it as perfect as possible, and they did. AT&T is to blame, for being greedy and only wanting this phone on there network only.