paeza
Nov 15, 08:21 AM
Gosh, I'll be able to email and type Word docs SO much faster!! :p
So funny
So funny
dr Dunkel
Apr 19, 03:06 PM
...and a proper graphics card to go with that 2560x1440 screen.
prady16
Oct 23, 10:16 AM
I ordered a MBP 2.16GHz with 2gigs Ram last tuesday (17th october) and on apples "order status" it is estimated to be shipped on friday the 27th.. so I hope there an update during this week :D
You could actually be in luck!!
You could actually be in luck!!
Chaos123x
Apr 12, 10:06 PM
$299... but this isn't studio
True $299 for each app will get expensive.
True $299 for each app will get expensive.
hdsalinas
Sep 1, 12:38 PM
My Guess:
iMac 17" - 1299
1.83 GHz
512MB RAM
160 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 - 128
iMac 20" - 1699
2.0 GHz upgradable to 2.16
512MB RAM
250 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 128 upgradable to 256 (As is already)
iMac 23": 1900 x 1200 - 1999
2.16 GHz upgradable to 2.33
1 GB Standard
250 SATA upgradable to 500 (as 17" and 20" is)
8x DL
ATI x1600 256
FW 800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say upgradable on 17" and 20" hard drives because we already know that.
In a dream world I'd say the 23" vCard would go to the x1800 or something
I think that your predection is very realistic. I would think that if they do introduced this model they would at least drop $100 off the price of the current models
Now with those specs, the imac 23 should be called the "Imac Pro"
iMac 17" - 1299
1.83 GHz
512MB RAM
160 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 - 128
iMac 20" - 1699
2.0 GHz upgradable to 2.16
512MB RAM
250 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 128 upgradable to 256 (As is already)
iMac 23": 1900 x 1200 - 1999
2.16 GHz upgradable to 2.33
1 GB Standard
250 SATA upgradable to 500 (as 17" and 20" is)
8x DL
ATI x1600 256
FW 800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say upgradable on 17" and 20" hard drives because we already know that.
In a dream world I'd say the 23" vCard would go to the x1800 or something
I think that your predection is very realistic. I would think that if they do introduced this model they would at least drop $100 off the price of the current models
Now with those specs, the imac 23 should be called the "Imac Pro"
Small White Car
Aug 29, 09:27 AM
I have to say though I hope u are wrong with regard to the Macbooks, i'm hoping for a Core 2 Duo update so I can purchase my first mac. Maybe if they don't i'll just save up some more money and buy and Core 2 Duo MBP when they're released!!
I hate to tell you this, but your "i'll just save up some more money" statement is probably the main reason Apple WON'T put Core 2 in the Macbooks!
Don't get me wrong, I'd love core 2 chips in EVERY Mac that's using Yonah now. That would be totally fantastic.
But I'm not trying to say what I WANT...I'm trying to figure out what I think Apple will DO.
Those are usually not the same thing with ANY company.
I hate to tell you this, but your "i'll just save up some more money" statement is probably the main reason Apple WON'T put Core 2 in the Macbooks!
Don't get me wrong, I'd love core 2 chips in EVERY Mac that's using Yonah now. That would be totally fantastic.
But I'm not trying to say what I WANT...I'm trying to figure out what I think Apple will DO.
Those are usually not the same thing with ANY company.
PBF
Mar 30, 10:33 PM
Are you able to download System Voices in DP2?
odedia
Aug 7, 02:56 AM
I will be surprised if Vista comes out with most features in leopard, even if they are hacked wanna be copies. They have done it before and with the preview Apple will just give them one more chance to do it. What I don't think they will be able to copy is the features in the iApps that will come out or core video effects. Well, not without raising the requirements to run vista yet again.
Windows Vista is feature complete. What exists today in the beta versions out there is what will be in the final product. Now all they do is handle bug fixes and performance problems.
Windows Vista is feature complete. What exists today in the beta versions out there is what will be in the final product. Now all they do is handle bug fixes and performance problems.
Surely
Nov 24, 03:32 PM
http://img4.realsimple.com/images/0911/chicken-trader-joes_300.jpghttp://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/00923/carrots.jpghttp://www.juicingcafe.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/celery2.jpg
http://www.scienceinmotion.co.il/blog/uploaded_images/onion-726176.jpghttp://www.thedailygreen.com/cm/thedailygreen/images/SA/garlic-pf2-lg.jpghttp://visualrecipes.com/images/uploads/recipe_images/91_image7.jpg
http://www.wegmans.com/prodimg/645/200/070227500645.jpg
Nom.
http://www.scienceinmotion.co.il/blog/uploaded_images/onion-726176.jpghttp://www.thedailygreen.com/cm/thedailygreen/images/SA/garlic-pf2-lg.jpghttp://visualrecipes.com/images/uploads/recipe_images/91_image7.jpg
http://www.wegmans.com/prodimg/645/200/070227500645.jpg
Nom.
rasmasyean
Mar 31, 12:52 PM
so now you're going to say the US lost WW1 and WW2? :p
Well regarding defeating the Nazi's and the Axis powers, one can credit the US to turning the tide. When the Nazis like practically conquered everyone in their path and are invading the UK, the Brits had to transfer a lot of technologies they made for the war to the US...where the US industrial might pretty much defined what we know today as "air dominance". Even though the Brits did make a lot of neat weapons (as traditional to their roots), the US was the one who turned those into massive amounts of airplanes, carriers, and sophisticated radars for killing Nazi and Japanese air planes and submarines.
So I mean, without the Brits, the US might not have been able to make all those toys so fast, but without the US, the Brits would have fell. But in retrospect, I feel that the Allies would have won anyway...just that it would have ended with many more atomic bombs dropped all over the place by the US.
Well regarding defeating the Nazi's and the Axis powers, one can credit the US to turning the tide. When the Nazis like practically conquered everyone in their path and are invading the UK, the Brits had to transfer a lot of technologies they made for the war to the US...where the US industrial might pretty much defined what we know today as "air dominance". Even though the Brits did make a lot of neat weapons (as traditional to their roots), the US was the one who turned those into massive amounts of airplanes, carriers, and sophisticated radars for killing Nazi and Japanese air planes and submarines.
So I mean, without the Brits, the US might not have been able to make all those toys so fast, but without the US, the Brits would have fell. But in retrospect, I feel that the Allies would have won anyway...just that it would have ended with many more atomic bombs dropped all over the place by the US.
iWonderwhy
Apr 2, 08:47 PM
What makes this commercial so awesome is that they didn't throw the technical specifications in your face (RAM, storage, etc) like some of the other competitors have.
bigpics
Mar 24, 12:57 PM
Dude, I'm sorry to inform you that what you're saying is an outright lie, and there are guys from the Lossless Compression Clan, called "Apple Lossless codec", "FLAC", and "APE", standing with heavy cluebats in their hands, ready to perform a painful reality sync on anyone thinking compression ALWAYS degrades quality.
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
Benguitar
Nov 26, 03:02 PM
http://www.oakley.com/images/catalog/generated/380x340/8b/489a167f2c2e2.jpg
Large Carbon Fiber Oakley Case.
I'm planning on getting back into photography, I'd like to get a Canon T2i and the 'Nifty Fifty' lens, So I will just use my new Pelican for that.
Maybe everyone won't hate me now.
To end all further BS do I feel like an idiot for putting sunglasses in a gun case? No.
Was it over kill? Yeah, I'll admit that.
Did I lose money on it? Nope, I've already found a new use for it.
The only thing that irritates the **** out of me, Is the members here on MacRumors, I've been through this type of crap before, Apparently everyone was bullied as a child or something because when ANYONE says something that isn't correct or seems "odd" people here jump on them and make sure to rub whatever it is in their face.
To me, Members here at MacRumors (not all, but lots) are the dictionary definition for 'Internet Bullying/Harassment.'
I've heard that you guys like to argue, Well believe it or not, Not all people like to argue. Nor do all people like to hear your narrow-minded pessimistic opinions.
So. Hope I was entertaining for some of you, I just don't like being picked on when you have no place what-so-ever to give another person crap about anything.
Have a nice day.
Large Carbon Fiber Oakley Case.
I'm planning on getting back into photography, I'd like to get a Canon T2i and the 'Nifty Fifty' lens, So I will just use my new Pelican for that.
Maybe everyone won't hate me now.
To end all further BS do I feel like an idiot for putting sunglasses in a gun case? No.
Was it over kill? Yeah, I'll admit that.
Did I lose money on it? Nope, I've already found a new use for it.
The only thing that irritates the **** out of me, Is the members here on MacRumors, I've been through this type of crap before, Apparently everyone was bullied as a child or something because when ANYONE says something that isn't correct or seems "odd" people here jump on them and make sure to rub whatever it is in their face.
To me, Members here at MacRumors (not all, but lots) are the dictionary definition for 'Internet Bullying/Harassment.'
I've heard that you guys like to argue, Well believe it or not, Not all people like to argue. Nor do all people like to hear your narrow-minded pessimistic opinions.
So. Hope I was entertaining for some of you, I just don't like being picked on when you have no place what-so-ever to give another person crap about anything.
Have a nice day.
ltgator333
Mar 28, 11:54 PM
wow... this lack of faith in Apple is suprising really. This company has been sitting about where it's at right now for the last 10 years or so, and all the sudden they're just gonna die? I think the reasons why this will not happen have been beaten to death, so I spair you repeating them.
The whole thing with Adobe/M$ pulling products is ridiculous as well. This has happened a million times, Apple makes an app and a third party realizes they can't compete with this new app and either lowers the amount of effort they put into their app or just pull the plug on it. Anyone remember MacAmp? Toast? The examples are readily available.
As for cheap Macs, hell yeah I'd like to see some. The whole reason you see a PC listed under the computers I personally own is because it was cheaper for me to build my own dual proc PC workstation that buy a Mac- other than a non-upgradeable computer that also to me isn't all that good looking, the iMac or eMac. The problem is Apple's business model works, and even though Apple makes computers, being they are a business, making money is still the #1 thing, if they're making $ there's no reason to change anything real drasticly.
I would like to see Apple come out with a headless desktop, but not have it be a direct replacement for iMac or eMac, an interim of upgradeability between the PMac line (which as for how desktop machines go, this thing is very upgrade freindly on a whole, the PMac G4's especially) and the iMac with virtually none. A machine that has a AGP slot, processor can be removed/upgraded, one HD and one optical drive bay and maybe 1 or 2 PCI-X slots would be a perfect fit upgradeability wise between they're high and low end. I beleive that if they were to do this I would price it similarly to the iMac, basicly a trade-off monitor for upgrades.. put the right spin on it and I think there's a market for a machine like this.
The whole thing with Adobe/M$ pulling products is ridiculous as well. This has happened a million times, Apple makes an app and a third party realizes they can't compete with this new app and either lowers the amount of effort they put into their app or just pull the plug on it. Anyone remember MacAmp? Toast? The examples are readily available.
As for cheap Macs, hell yeah I'd like to see some. The whole reason you see a PC listed under the computers I personally own is because it was cheaper for me to build my own dual proc PC workstation that buy a Mac- other than a non-upgradeable computer that also to me isn't all that good looking, the iMac or eMac. The problem is Apple's business model works, and even though Apple makes computers, being they are a business, making money is still the #1 thing, if they're making $ there's no reason to change anything real drasticly.
I would like to see Apple come out with a headless desktop, but not have it be a direct replacement for iMac or eMac, an interim of upgradeability between the PMac line (which as for how desktop machines go, this thing is very upgrade freindly on a whole, the PMac G4's especially) and the iMac with virtually none. A machine that has a AGP slot, processor can be removed/upgraded, one HD and one optical drive bay and maybe 1 or 2 PCI-X slots would be a perfect fit upgradeability wise between they're high and low end. I beleive that if they were to do this I would price it similarly to the iMac, basicly a trade-off monitor for upgrades.. put the right spin on it and I think there's a market for a machine like this.
Proud Liberal
Aug 16, 09:54 AM
I have no interest in downloading music on the go or waving around my songs wirelessly.
How about an iPod where we actually increase the quality of audio instead of compromising how everything sounds for the "latest" features. Now we put in even more weak audio components to make up for the lack of power because of a wireless feature.
Pfft
How about an iPod with increased capacity so that we can actually increase the quality of the audio instead of compromising how everything sounds for the "latest" features.
How about an iPod where we actually increase the quality of audio instead of compromising how everything sounds for the "latest" features. Now we put in even more weak audio components to make up for the lack of power because of a wireless feature.
Pfft
How about an iPod with increased capacity so that we can actually increase the quality of the audio instead of compromising how everything sounds for the "latest" features.
Edge100
Sep 1, 12:18 PM
I think so, sounds amazing. Makes my 20 seem puny!
Mine's bigger than yours!! :)
Mine's bigger than yours!! :)
Lynxpoint
Sep 1, 04:04 PM
multimedia,
that 30" all-in-one would be something to get excited about which means it won't happen.
that 30" all-in-one would be something to get excited about which means it won't happen.
arkitect
Mar 24, 12:51 PM
You weren't born gay, you chose to be gay.
Oh FFS!!! :rolleyes:
How many times more are we going to have to argue this?
It is not a choice.
I no more chose to be gay than you chose to be straight.
Christ! Sometimes this forum reminds me of a Whack the Mole game� hit one on the head and another pops up.
Same stuff over and over�
Oh FFS!!! :rolleyes:
How many times more are we going to have to argue this?
It is not a choice.
I no more chose to be gay than you chose to be straight.
Christ! Sometimes this forum reminds me of a Whack the Mole game� hit one on the head and another pops up.
Same stuff over and over�
osxhero
Apr 12, 09:31 PM
People detection or NSA spoofer code. People should have the right to turn this stuff off. Hope FCP doesn't impose it without an option to disable.
Zoddino
Mar 31, 11:48 AM
Sadly can't help (sorry) but is there any way you could post the background image of mt fuji on its own? Its lovely :)
http://cl.ly/3I371o1z0w003t371d0l
it's here, i posted it a few posts before ;)
http://cl.ly/3I371o1z0w003t371d0l
it's here, i posted it a few posts before ;)
eljanitor
Apr 20, 05:05 PM
"rare"? In what part of the world are they "rare"?
While I was looking for a new car maybe less then a year ago, and I asked the salesman if they had any manuals on the lot. He replied by telling me yes they do, and we got in a car that had paddle shifters on the steering wheel. I told him this is not a manual car, and he was obviously old enough to remember that a manual car has a "shifter" sticking out of the center, and usually a clutch pedal.
So after that he explained to me that, "All the new cars are like this, there are no more manuals." I looked at him and said um, "I can order one online with a manual, without these paddles. So what do you meant they don't make them anymore?"
I was greeted by another salesman when I got back from the test drive. When he asked me how I enjoyed the car, I asked him the same question, about when would they have a manual model on the lot. He said, "We don't stock those here sorry, but you can order it online and have it shipped here for pick up if you like."
I ended up going to another dealer, who didn't try to tell me, " There are no more stick shift cars." I don't know when they will be trying to phase out the manual car, but it does seem that they are less desirable in places.
However here are some more facts about manual cars:
They are less expensive new then automatics by about $500 - $1000.
They are cheaper to maintain and replace then automatics.
Car dealers and salesmen make less commission on the sale of a manual car because it costs less. ( The paddle shifters, and the sport mode is an option on most cars and is more then the regular automatic transmission)
You can get better gas mileage with a manual car vs an automatic.
While I was looking for a new car maybe less then a year ago, and I asked the salesman if they had any manuals on the lot. He replied by telling me yes they do, and we got in a car that had paddle shifters on the steering wheel. I told him this is not a manual car, and he was obviously old enough to remember that a manual car has a "shifter" sticking out of the center, and usually a clutch pedal.
So after that he explained to me that, "All the new cars are like this, there are no more manuals." I looked at him and said um, "I can order one online with a manual, without these paddles. So what do you meant they don't make them anymore?"
I was greeted by another salesman when I got back from the test drive. When he asked me how I enjoyed the car, I asked him the same question, about when would they have a manual model on the lot. He said, "We don't stock those here sorry, but you can order it online and have it shipped here for pick up if you like."
I ended up going to another dealer, who didn't try to tell me, " There are no more stick shift cars." I don't know when they will be trying to phase out the manual car, but it does seem that they are less desirable in places.
However here are some more facts about manual cars:
They are less expensive new then automatics by about $500 - $1000.
They are cheaper to maintain and replace then automatics.
Car dealers and salesmen make less commission on the sale of a manual car because it costs less. ( The paddle shifters, and the sport mode is an option on most cars and is more then the regular automatic transmission)
You can get better gas mileage with a manual car vs an automatic.
Hans Brix
Apr 20, 04:58 PM
Yes I can drive a standard car.
I would like to clarify a few things for people who don't live in North America on why so many don't drive Standard. Most cars today can't be had with a standard and even it's available you'd be hard pressed to find one, most dealer lots don't stock them. Certain cars have them but most don't offer it in higher trim levels so your stuck with automatic if you want a nicer car ex: Lexus IS, Ford Focus, Honda Civic, Accord, many Hyundai's.
I've noticed this more and more. Hate it.
I would like to clarify a few things for people who don't live in North America on why so many don't drive Standard. Most cars today can't be had with a standard and even it's available you'd be hard pressed to find one, most dealer lots don't stock them. Certain cars have them but most don't offer it in higher trim levels so your stuck with automatic if you want a nicer car ex: Lexus IS, Ford Focus, Honda Civic, Accord, many Hyundai's.
I've noticed this more and more. Hate it.
csHokie
May 3, 11:38 PM
Uh, this comment is entirely wrong. With iOS, you can download something and move to another app and it will continue downloading in the background. The multitasking APIs have all the obvious backgrounding tasks covered and will likely include more if needed. Basically the goal is to allow background tasks when needed and when not needed let the app suspend and release resources to the apps you actually need. This method in iOS has proven to work far better than traditional operating systems like Mac OS X and Windows. That's why they are bringing it "Back to the Mac OS". The best parts of what they developed in iOS are being added in Lion.
I think most people's problem is that they mistakenly viewed iOS as inferior in every way to Mac OS X but in many ways it is cutting edge and far better than OS X and Windows have ever been. The way iOS multitasking works is the reason very powerful and memory hungry apps like iMove and GarageBand for iPad work so surprisingly well on such a limited memory device. The apps get to use a much larger percentage of the CPU, GPU, and RAM than they do on traditional OSes under normal usage where you have multiple apps open.
Yeah, it would work great for quick loading, full screen or minimized applications. I'm afraid it would fall apart most everywhere else... and they would have to have more background options than in iOS (can I listen on a socket for incoming connections in a daemon?). Anyway, I don't think they will get rid of the traditional <blank>top multitasking.
Right now I have a bunch of tabs open in Safari on my Mac and it's consuming a little over 1GB of RAM and lots of CPU. If I switch to Photoshop, Safari is still going to be using up all that RAM and CPU I really need for Photoshop when I don't plan on using Safari again until later today. And I don't want to shut it down because I have a bunch things in these tabs that I want to get back to later today including partially typed forum replies, halfway read articles, etc. On the iPad, Safari would suspend and release the RAM and CPU to my currently used RAM/CPU hungry app. That's what they need to bring to Lion.
Use Firefox and save tabs on exit...
I think most people's problem is that they mistakenly viewed iOS as inferior in every way to Mac OS X but in many ways it is cutting edge and far better than OS X and Windows have ever been. The way iOS multitasking works is the reason very powerful and memory hungry apps like iMove and GarageBand for iPad work so surprisingly well on such a limited memory device. The apps get to use a much larger percentage of the CPU, GPU, and RAM than they do on traditional OSes under normal usage where you have multiple apps open.
Yeah, it would work great for quick loading, full screen or minimized applications. I'm afraid it would fall apart most everywhere else... and they would have to have more background options than in iOS (can I listen on a socket for incoming connections in a daemon?). Anyway, I don't think they will get rid of the traditional <blank>top multitasking.
Right now I have a bunch of tabs open in Safari on my Mac and it's consuming a little over 1GB of RAM and lots of CPU. If I switch to Photoshop, Safari is still going to be using up all that RAM and CPU I really need for Photoshop when I don't plan on using Safari again until later today. And I don't want to shut it down because I have a bunch things in these tabs that I want to get back to later today including partially typed forum replies, halfway read articles, etc. On the iPad, Safari would suspend and release the RAM and CPU to my currently used RAM/CPU hungry app. That's what they need to bring to Lion.
Use Firefox and save tabs on exit...
chutch15
Sep 13, 09:05 AM
There is certainly space.