DocNo
Apr 11, 10:24 AM
I think they want to make FCP a tool for consumers who have no idea about narrative structure and storytelling.
So wouldn't that make the recent pushes with iMovie, particularly on the iOS redundant? That' doesn't seem a very smart use of resources or use of branding...
FCP isn't useful for Apple any more.
Really? Had lunch with SJ lately? Care to share more?
Regarding editing conventions, they are far older then 20 or so years. However, they've been around for a very long time and those conventions will be here to stay. Why? Because in the end of the day stories are linear and that fact won't change one bit even if Apple releases iMovie Pro.
I guess time will tell. I remember reading comments like yours from industry "experts" when I first started playing around with PageMaker 1.0 on my school's Mac Plus - dismissing it as a toy and not a serious or professional tool.
Perhaps "old timers" problems like yours is that you have been in your box for so long that you can't possibly imagine how it could be different and useful? The panel touched on that - I think it was in Part 2. It was fun to see who embraced that notation and which members of the panel dismissed it (either verbally or by their body language).
Final thought: evolve or die; be prepared to get out of your comfort zone. Heck, you might even like it!
So wouldn't that make the recent pushes with iMovie, particularly on the iOS redundant? That' doesn't seem a very smart use of resources or use of branding...
FCP isn't useful for Apple any more.
Really? Had lunch with SJ lately? Care to share more?
Regarding editing conventions, they are far older then 20 or so years. However, they've been around for a very long time and those conventions will be here to stay. Why? Because in the end of the day stories are linear and that fact won't change one bit even if Apple releases iMovie Pro.
I guess time will tell. I remember reading comments like yours from industry "experts" when I first started playing around with PageMaker 1.0 on my school's Mac Plus - dismissing it as a toy and not a serious or professional tool.
Perhaps "old timers" problems like yours is that you have been in your box for so long that you can't possibly imagine how it could be different and useful? The panel touched on that - I think it was in Part 2. It was fun to see who embraced that notation and which members of the panel dismissed it (either verbally or by their body language).
Final thought: evolve or die; be prepared to get out of your comfort zone. Heck, you might even like it!
cloudnine
Aug 25, 05:02 PM
Well, recently there have been problems with people having their mail bounced back to them because somehow the dotMac smtp servers were blacklisted by spamcop and a few other services. They have been having pretty bad, though geographically localized, service disruptions. Friends of mine have also complained that mail they send to me are sometimes bounced back with a "This account doesn't exist" error message even though they have sent me mail before and after the event (yes, they verified the email address).
So, in summary, there are a lot of problems that shouldn't occur with a $100 a year service. DotMac should be at least a 99% uptime service for that kind of money.
Wow... I had no idea. *crosses fingers* I hope that doesn't happen to me :/
So, in summary, there are a lot of problems that shouldn't occur with a $100 a year service. DotMac should be at least a 99% uptime service for that kind of money.
Wow... I had no idea. *crosses fingers* I hope that doesn't happen to me :/
swingerofbirch
Nov 28, 07:45 PM
If we're already paying a royalty on blank CD-Rs because they say we are using Limewire, then aren't those of who aren't using Limewire essentially paying to use a service which we are not using?
By my logic, if we are already compensating the music industry through our purchases, we should then be entitled to use the services I just found out from these posts that we are paying for!
By my logic, if we are already compensating the music industry through our purchases, we should then be entitled to use the services I just found out from these posts that we are paying for!
tripjammer
Apr 11, 01:05 PM
Not sure I believe the rumors, but as long as my 3G still works, I'll wait. $200 every 3 years is better than $200 every 2 years.
That is why you sell your iphone every year and it does not cost you to upgrade. ATT basically allows you to upgrade at the lowest price every year.
Its all about timing.
That is why you sell your iphone every year and it does not cost you to upgrade. ATT basically allows you to upgrade at the lowest price every year.
Its all about timing.
AngryCorgi
Apr 7, 08:28 PM
Not on an iPad... (which was my point)
:)
Actually...did you see the photoshop tech demo on the ipad2? They are getting REALLY close!
:)
Actually...did you see the photoshop tech demo on the ipad2? They are getting REALLY close!
infidel69
Apr 11, 11:33 AM
Big mistake if true.
michaelflynn
Apr 6, 02:53 PM
Constant crashes on a Windows machine, eh? I don't see that from feedback I've been hearing. I'm wondering about the specs of those Windows machines you are speaking of (unsupported video card, or not enough RAM perhaps?). Drop by our forum with your issues. Let's see if we can help you troubleshoot your issues: http://forums.adobe.com/community/premiere/premierepro_current
Yes, many of the crashes I've experienced have to do with Matrox cards, but not all of them. My boss is on the Abode and Matrox beta teams, so I will let him deal with the feedback. I think the machines are primarily i7's with 8+GB RAM on Windows 7 64-bit...I don't know for sure though, I'm not well versed in Windows based machines.
Yes, many of the crashes I've experienced have to do with Matrox cards, but not all of them. My boss is on the Abode and Matrox beta teams, so I will let him deal with the feedback. I think the machines are primarily i7's with 8+GB RAM on Windows 7 64-bit...I don't know for sure though, I'm not well versed in Windows based machines.
Cygnus311
Aug 27, 09:40 AM
OK, that's wierd. Who would get angry about having research into what the public wants done for them???
No wonder Nintendo sucks so much.
BTW, Congrats on ur 500 Posts!
Nintendo sucks? You must not have payed attention to E3 this year.
No wonder Nintendo sucks so much.
BTW, Congrats on ur 500 Posts!
Nintendo sucks? You must not have payed attention to E3 this year.
marksman
Mar 23, 08:24 AM
Complete BS "iphone" lookalikes date back to ebfore the iphone was anounced. So either some companys have people who can predict the future, or the design and tech behind the iphone was aused BEFORe it was released and apple just changed excisting designs.
Ipad is basicly a large smartphone.
LOL what?
Perhaps you just dont have any experience with other UI's? That people jailbreak to specificly change certain parts of it shows there is something lacking.
The context where UI and grid-like were used were not correct.
Better notifications, different user profiles, better accesibility on settings, better multitasking, better start screen , more interactivity on the home screen,...
People are saying they want the UI changed because it LOOKS dated, not because of anything it allows the user to do.
You dont seem to understand what he is saying.
multitasking is being able to run different programs at the same time. The ipad 1 isnt really capable of this as it laks ram to hold those programs in memeory.
Apple solution is a cripled form of multitasking. Certain task can be done in the background and even certain programs are allowed to run completly in the background yet this all has to be coded AND remains hampered by the lack of ram.
I am pretty sure I know what Apple does and the person I was replying to did not, not sure why you are defending them when they clearly did not understand it.
Even in the browser you have trouble keeping open tabs as they constantly need to refresh as you switch as it runs out of memory.
Yeah on the original iPad, and on the original iPhone as well. With the memory added now it is not a problem. Again people complaining about things they don't even understand.
So you really think an extra 256MB of ram would have destroyed the battery life on the ipad? Strange how it DOESNT do that on the iphone 4 or comparable tablets.
The original iPad had only 256mb of ram because Apple wanted to reach a killer price point, at $499. They managed to do it, and do it in Spades. This one factor alone has made it amazingly difficult for anyone to compete with the iPad in the space to deliver the specs and price point. You notice the iPad 2 has more memory right?
If you got any source to back this up, post it otherwise its a myth like the "multitasking destroys battery life"
WAT? Do you know how computers work?
You should perhaps look beyond macrumors, plenty out there and depending on the consumer some better other worse then the ipad 1 and 2 .
Plenty of what out where? Tablets? Are you serious? The Xoom, some tiny galaxy tab that is not really a comparable device? Are you serious that there are plenty out there? When the iPad 2 was already finished being designed and developed there were NO other legitimate tablet models in the marketplace.
And britney spears sold a lot of almbums at a time, so at that time she was "the best"? BS of course.
LOL what? So Apple sells a lot of expensive computing devices because they suck? Your point doesn't make sense. It is like you are just spinning in circles with this post about to throw up.
Wich will be no different then for the iphone, and we both know within 2 years android outsold the iphone.
So you don't understand the primary differences between the cellphone market and the launch of the iPhone and the tablet market and the launch of the iPad. If you did you would understand why this is not the case.
Not to mention Android is an OS and the iPhone is a piece of hardware. You do know the difference between an operating system and a piece of hardware right?
Ipad is basicly a large smartphone.
LOL what?
Perhaps you just dont have any experience with other UI's? That people jailbreak to specificly change certain parts of it shows there is something lacking.
The context where UI and grid-like were used were not correct.
Better notifications, different user profiles, better accesibility on settings, better multitasking, better start screen , more interactivity on the home screen,...
People are saying they want the UI changed because it LOOKS dated, not because of anything it allows the user to do.
You dont seem to understand what he is saying.
multitasking is being able to run different programs at the same time. The ipad 1 isnt really capable of this as it laks ram to hold those programs in memeory.
Apple solution is a cripled form of multitasking. Certain task can be done in the background and even certain programs are allowed to run completly in the background yet this all has to be coded AND remains hampered by the lack of ram.
I am pretty sure I know what Apple does and the person I was replying to did not, not sure why you are defending them when they clearly did not understand it.
Even in the browser you have trouble keeping open tabs as they constantly need to refresh as you switch as it runs out of memory.
Yeah on the original iPad, and on the original iPhone as well. With the memory added now it is not a problem. Again people complaining about things they don't even understand.
So you really think an extra 256MB of ram would have destroyed the battery life on the ipad? Strange how it DOESNT do that on the iphone 4 or comparable tablets.
The original iPad had only 256mb of ram because Apple wanted to reach a killer price point, at $499. They managed to do it, and do it in Spades. This one factor alone has made it amazingly difficult for anyone to compete with the iPad in the space to deliver the specs and price point. You notice the iPad 2 has more memory right?
If you got any source to back this up, post it otherwise its a myth like the "multitasking destroys battery life"
WAT? Do you know how computers work?
You should perhaps look beyond macrumors, plenty out there and depending on the consumer some better other worse then the ipad 1 and 2 .
Plenty of what out where? Tablets? Are you serious? The Xoom, some tiny galaxy tab that is not really a comparable device? Are you serious that there are plenty out there? When the iPad 2 was already finished being designed and developed there were NO other legitimate tablet models in the marketplace.
And britney spears sold a lot of almbums at a time, so at that time she was "the best"? BS of course.
LOL what? So Apple sells a lot of expensive computing devices because they suck? Your point doesn't make sense. It is like you are just spinning in circles with this post about to throw up.
Wich will be no different then for the iphone, and we both know within 2 years android outsold the iphone.
So you don't understand the primary differences between the cellphone market and the launch of the iPhone and the tablet market and the launch of the iPad. If you did you would understand why this is not the case.
Not to mention Android is an OS and the iPhone is a piece of hardware. You do know the difference between an operating system and a piece of hardware right?
gnasher729
Aug 17, 03:44 AM
1. The video cards are underclocked compared to their PC equivalents on the Mac.
Could you give some evidence for that, except that they are underclocked on the MacBook Pro _when they are idle_?
Could you give some evidence for that, except that they are underclocked on the MacBook Pro _when they are idle_?
Durendal
Apr 5, 07:10 PM
About time. FCP is aging poorly. The engine is still Carbon and based around the old QT, which means that a lot of functions only use two cores at the most. I think we'll finally see Apple seriously leveraging GCD, OpenCL, etc here, although don't expect video compression to use OpenCL if the lousy quality of CUDA encodes is any indicator. Maybe Apple will add support for QuickSync on Sandy Bridge.
Also, Compressor is a damned joke. When your "Pro" software encoder gives you less options and lower quality with longer render times than free alternatives, you really need to go back to the drawing board. Yes, a lot of folks use hardware encoders, but really, if you're going to include a software encoder, at least make it as good as free software...
Also, Compressor is a damned joke. When your "Pro" software encoder gives you less options and lower quality with longer render times than free alternatives, you really need to go back to the drawing board. Yes, a lot of folks use hardware encoders, but really, if you're going to include a software encoder, at least make it as good as free software...
Benjamins
Mar 31, 02:43 PM
You could say the same thing about Apple though. The Apple fad will go away and the extremely closed ecosystem which seems to not be really developing much in terms of UI or having an actual roadmap could end iOS.
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
If Apple FAD goes away, where will Google copy from next?
You are delusional if you think Google is not building upon the Apple FAD.
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
If Apple FAD goes away, where will Google copy from next?
You are delusional if you think Google is not building upon the Apple FAD.
dgree03
Apr 6, 02:09 PM
What bothers me is people think because an iPad sells more it is superior, unless you made the iPad or work at Apple I don't see how that makes sense. Also most people on here have never even played with a XOOM.
I own both an iPad2 (my wife's technically) and my XOOM. I had an iPad1 since launch until I sold it for a XOOM. For me, Apps are lacking on XOOM but it's made up for with the true tablet OS and excellent first party apps.
Find me a better GMail/Email, Maps, Browser on the iPad and other stuff you will actually use most often and I'll sell my XOOM. Since I've had my XOOM, I haven't touched the iPad2. Everytime I pick it up I miss using the XOOM.
Took the words right out of my mouth. I am in the EXACT same situation as you.. with the EXACT same reaction.
I own both an iPad2 (my wife's technically) and my XOOM. I had an iPad1 since launch until I sold it for a XOOM. For me, Apps are lacking on XOOM but it's made up for with the true tablet OS and excellent first party apps.
Find me a better GMail/Email, Maps, Browser on the iPad and other stuff you will actually use most often and I'll sell my XOOM. Since I've had my XOOM, I haven't touched the iPad2. Everytime I pick it up I miss using the XOOM.
Took the words right out of my mouth. I am in the EXACT same situation as you.. with the EXACT same reaction.
pyramid6
Apr 6, 03:44 PM
I think it's great that some people like the Xoom, but for me it's a nonstarter.
As a developer, 100,000 units is not even worth considering developing for. I know I'm not the only one. I really don't like the walled garden of the Apple App store, but it is where the tablets are at the moment.
As a developer, 100,000 units is not even worth considering developing for. I know I'm not the only one. I really don't like the walled garden of the Apple App store, but it is where the tablets are at the moment.
Hastings101
Apr 6, 03:29 PM
But hey, haven't you heard, Honeycomb is a real tablet OS. (Whatever the heck that means.)
Google must have used that line in a PowerPoint somewhere because I see it regurgitated verbatim on every single iPad vs. Honeycomb thread.
The Google brainwashing continues. ;)
No more a real tablet OS than iOS is
The corporate brainwashing continues ;)
Google must have used that line in a PowerPoint somewhere because I see it regurgitated verbatim on every single iPad vs. Honeycomb thread.
The Google brainwashing continues. ;)
No more a real tablet OS than iOS is
The corporate brainwashing continues ;)
iGary
Sep 12, 11:02 AM
The folks over at Anandtech have dropped engineering samples of the quad core cloverton into a Mac Pro - http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p;=6
and it worked ... all eight cores were recognised.
The rest of the article was interesting too.
This willl probably be the update I purchase next year - if it makes it into the Mac Pro - thanks for the link.
and it worked ... all eight cores were recognised.
The rest of the article was interesting too.
This willl probably be the update I purchase next year - if it makes it into the Mac Pro - thanks for the link.
gnasher729
Apr 19, 03:36 PM
Does anyone think that a normal person would actually confuse a Samsung Galaxy (especially with that huge "Samsung" on it) with an Apple iPhone when they're buying it?
I mean, is Apple going to claim that they're losing sales because the Galaxy is so close to the iPhone that people can't tell the difference? If so, that sure doesn't say much for the iPhone. Or it says a lot for the Galaxy.
You made up your mind and you argue accordingly. Consider this: Many people know the name "iPhone" and the way it looks, they may even know the name "Macintosh", but not the name "Apple". They might have talked to someone who used an iPhone and was very happy with it, were convinced to buy one, and go to a shop and pick up the phone that looks exactly like the one they wanted to buy. And end up with a Samsung phone when they actually wanted an iPhone.
Your second argument doesn't really make much sense. Samsung knew what the iPhone looks like, so if the Galaxy looks the same, it is because Samsung decided that it should look that way. Confusion surely goes both ways, so there would be a danger for Samsung that someone wanting to buy a Galaxy ends up buying an iPhone. Samsung had to know and accept this. So obviously Samsung is of the opinion that if people who want an iPhone buy a Galaxy by mistake, and people who want a Galaxy buy an iPhone by mistake, then Samsung will overall benefit. Doesn't seem to say much for the Galaxy, if they try to create this confusion.
I mean, is Apple going to claim that they're losing sales because the Galaxy is so close to the iPhone that people can't tell the difference? If so, that sure doesn't say much for the iPhone. Or it says a lot for the Galaxy.
You made up your mind and you argue accordingly. Consider this: Many people know the name "iPhone" and the way it looks, they may even know the name "Macintosh", but not the name "Apple". They might have talked to someone who used an iPhone and was very happy with it, were convinced to buy one, and go to a shop and pick up the phone that looks exactly like the one they wanted to buy. And end up with a Samsung phone when they actually wanted an iPhone.
Your second argument doesn't really make much sense. Samsung knew what the iPhone looks like, so if the Galaxy looks the same, it is because Samsung decided that it should look that way. Confusion surely goes both ways, so there would be a danger for Samsung that someone wanting to buy a Galaxy ends up buying an iPhone. Samsung had to know and accept this. So obviously Samsung is of the opinion that if people who want an iPhone buy a Galaxy by mistake, and people who want a Galaxy buy an iPhone by mistake, then Samsung will overall benefit. Doesn't seem to say much for the Galaxy, if they try to create this confusion.
2IS
Apr 10, 10:39 AM
Sorry not all of us are blessed with 'night vision' I dunno about your advanced genetics, but using my MBA on minimum setting will give me a headache in about 3 minutes.
Majority of laptops don't have a BL keyboard yet the majority of people still manage just fine despite not having it or night vision.
Majority of laptops don't have a BL keyboard yet the majority of people still manage just fine despite not having it or night vision.
RichP
Jul 14, 03:59 PM
Ha, when I posted a while back that using Dell as a guide, Xeon processors were feasible, I was ignored, now it seems totally reasonable...
Anyway, I dont see why people make sure comparisons to Windows machines now that we are running Intel hardware. Apple is not building Windows machines, they are building Apple machines that run OSX. Benchmarks will be made, and at times Apple isnt going to win them. But its the OSX experience, and its stability as a platform, that is going to be a selling point, not the all out speed of the top-of-the-top Intel processor (the highest end PC processors always carry a heavy premium; its difficult to say that the yield of what we are shown as the highest available G5 is similar to the yields intel has for their high end)
I just have my fingers crossed that we see some cool "fast-OS switching" in Leopard with these machines.
Anyway, I dont see why people make sure comparisons to Windows machines now that we are running Intel hardware. Apple is not building Windows machines, they are building Apple machines that run OSX. Benchmarks will be made, and at times Apple isnt going to win them. But its the OSX experience, and its stability as a platform, that is going to be a selling point, not the all out speed of the top-of-the-top Intel processor (the highest end PC processors always carry a heavy premium; its difficult to say that the yield of what we are shown as the highest available G5 is similar to the yields intel has for their high end)
I just have my fingers crossed that we see some cool "fast-OS switching" in Leopard with these machines.
twoodcc
Aug 12, 09:04 PM
I don't really care if you count the Prologues as full releases or not. The fact remains...
GT1 + GT2 + GT3 + GT4 = 46M
...not 57M like you originally, and incorrectly, said.
but you do care. you are pointing out that you care by what you just typed. if you count the prologues, you get over 57M sold.
You brought up sales, not me. And last I checked, objectively, 100 is more than 57, regardless of how you subjectively look at it.
i disagree. let's bring math into the equation, since you seem to have missed it.
100,000,000/15 = 6,666,667.
57,000,000/8 = 7,125,000.
so GT has sold more copies per game.
No, the only thing that adds to is a stat point on the back of the box. I mean, hooray, someone's 87 CRX is in a racing game. YAY!! :rolleyes:
That is the problem with GT these days. Too much fluff, and lacking in the racing. I mean, whatever, they can make whatever kind of game they want. If they want to fill the game with 1000 cars, 800 of which most people never touch, they can do that. To me, though, they are losing what made the series great years ago.
well again this is your opinion. we all have one. i personally think that if someone is into cars, they will care about their car. not everyone can afford the cars in the game, but it might be nice to see that car that you can afford and have in real life in the game. i mean, the game is meant for people into cars.
NO WAY!!! I never knew that. :rolleyes:
just pointing out the facts. are you doing any different?
Sure, but a "Guinness Record" for it? Again, to much fluff.
they have records for everything. like how much cheese you can eat, or whatever. that's what Guinness Records are
No, it is a concept car that Citro�n paraded around at car shows. Lots of concept cars get built with the fake intention of going into production. But you know what? Almost none of them do. This Citro�n is no different.
but the intention of the car was for the game. how do you not see that? specifically for the game. in fact, it's named GT after the game
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great? so iPhone sales show nothing to how good it is? or iPod sales mean nothing to how well it is? of course it does. you make games to sell. if they don't sell, you stop making games. and then there wouldn't be this thread, b/c there would be no GT5.
GT1 + GT2 + GT3 + GT4 = 46M
...not 57M like you originally, and incorrectly, said.
but you do care. you are pointing out that you care by what you just typed. if you count the prologues, you get over 57M sold.
You brought up sales, not me. And last I checked, objectively, 100 is more than 57, regardless of how you subjectively look at it.
i disagree. let's bring math into the equation, since you seem to have missed it.
100,000,000/15 = 6,666,667.
57,000,000/8 = 7,125,000.
so GT has sold more copies per game.
No, the only thing that adds to is a stat point on the back of the box. I mean, hooray, someone's 87 CRX is in a racing game. YAY!! :rolleyes:
That is the problem with GT these days. Too much fluff, and lacking in the racing. I mean, whatever, they can make whatever kind of game they want. If they want to fill the game with 1000 cars, 800 of which most people never touch, they can do that. To me, though, they are losing what made the series great years ago.
well again this is your opinion. we all have one. i personally think that if someone is into cars, they will care about their car. not everyone can afford the cars in the game, but it might be nice to see that car that you can afford and have in real life in the game. i mean, the game is meant for people into cars.
NO WAY!!! I never knew that. :rolleyes:
just pointing out the facts. are you doing any different?
Sure, but a "Guinness Record" for it? Again, to much fluff.
they have records for everything. like how much cheese you can eat, or whatever. that's what Guinness Records are
No, it is a concept car that Citro�n paraded around at car shows. Lots of concept cars get built with the fake intention of going into production. But you know what? Almost none of them do. This Citro�n is no different.
but the intention of the car was for the game. how do you not see that? specifically for the game. in fact, it's named GT after the game
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great? so iPhone sales show nothing to how good it is? or iPod sales mean nothing to how well it is? of course it does. you make games to sell. if they don't sell, you stop making games. and then there wouldn't be this thread, b/c there would be no GT5.
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 03:45 PM
Well, I dont know where to begin... I work in science and you have to trust me when I say that you can't deduct anything from the "facts" you have. You are guessing.
The fact is that GSM has 81% of the world market... and that makes cdma a small market.
It's called an estimate... a scientist should know what that is. Care to dispute, then provide your own "facts". I also have a science background... big whoppde do! And I standby my assumption that the amount of internet usage is probably a good gauge of cell phone usage.
+15% of +1.5bil is hardly small. It may be in the minority, but +150mil people from affluent countries is a very profitable market.
The fact is that GSM has 81% of the world market... and that makes cdma a small market.
It's called an estimate... a scientist should know what that is. Care to dispute, then provide your own "facts". I also have a science background... big whoppde do! And I standby my assumption that the amount of internet usage is probably a good gauge of cell phone usage.
+15% of +1.5bil is hardly small. It may be in the minority, but +150mil people from affluent countries is a very profitable market.
djchristie
Nov 29, 08:10 AM
Surely if they want a cut of mp3 players they should also have a cut of:
Hard drive sales in general (my computer has more music on thatn my iPod)
Mobile phones that can play mp3's
PSP's
cd players and hifi's that play mp3 cd's
any SD, memory stick, flash drive etc that could be used to store alleged stolen music.....
the list goes on.
Hope steve, and everyone else, tells them where to go.
Hard drive sales in general (my computer has more music on thatn my iPod)
Mobile phones that can play mp3's
PSP's
cd players and hifi's that play mp3 cd's
any SD, memory stick, flash drive etc that could be used to store alleged stolen music.....
the list goes on.
Hope steve, and everyone else, tells them where to go.
jicon
Aug 17, 01:02 AM
Lots of stuff on Anandtech about the poor memory performance on the Intel chipset.
Looks like the Xeons got killed by the G5 in Word in their tests.
Might be an interesting machine when/if the motherboard chipset/ memory performance issue is looked in to.
I think part 3 of their review will be telling, paring the machine up to XP machines in a variety of tests.
Looks like the Xeons got killed by the G5 in Word in their tests.
Might be an interesting machine when/if the motherboard chipset/ memory performance issue is looked in to.
I think part 3 of their review will be telling, paring the machine up to XP machines in a variety of tests.
DStaal
Sep 13, 09:35 AM
It would be nice if 10.5 would allow a more 'blind' method to utilize these cores, versus having programmers specificly program for multi-core. Now that would be extremely helpful and allow a more simultanous workflow.
How much more 'blind' do you want it? All the programmer has to do at this point is use multiple threads. Even if they don't, multiple cores will be automatically used for system and other processes.
Splitting one thread so that it ran cocurent with itself is a recipie for massive trouble. Mac OS X is about as blind as any system out there for the programmer. There may be some more optimizations that the system could make in it's own handling of multiprocessing, but from a programmer's perspective it doesn't matter how many cores the system has. (Unless you really want it to.)
How much more 'blind' do you want it? All the programmer has to do at this point is use multiple threads. Even if they don't, multiple cores will be automatically used for system and other processes.
Splitting one thread so that it ran cocurent with itself is a recipie for massive trouble. Mac OS X is about as blind as any system out there for the programmer. There may be some more optimizations that the system could make in it's own handling of multiprocessing, but from a programmer's perspective it doesn't matter how many cores the system has. (Unless you really want it to.)
