.jpg ",underwater wallpaper hi")
mdriftmeyer
Apr 23, 11:56 PM
They use a lot more CPU time to process though. A JPG can be quickly converted to a bitmap and sent off to the GPU, a vector image has to be rendered before conversion to bitmap. Just imagine moving your mouse over the Dock with magnification on, each icon would need to be re-rendered for every time the mouse moved one pixel. With bitmaps, it's all done by the GPU. When there're hundreds of icons on display at once, that will probably become quite CPU intensive. I'm not surprised KDE supported it, it's open source, and we all know Linux is the king of feature creep.
You said yourself that wallpapers should be vector graphics. And by that, I presumed you meant the background in the subject of the thread. Safari supports SVG, but imo, it's not really a big thing that there's no support for it as a wallpaper. It's not the first thing people think of when they list Snow Leopard's shortcomings :P
What intelligent Developer would use the CPU to convert Vectors -> Bitmaps when they have a GPGPU to do the heavy lifting? Certainly not Apple.
You said yourself that wallpapers should be vector graphics. And by that, I presumed you meant the background in the subject of the thread. Safari supports SVG, but imo, it's not really a big thing that there's no support for it as a wallpaper. It's not the first thing people think of when they list Snow Leopard's shortcomings :P
What intelligent Developer would use the CPU to convert Vectors -> Bitmaps when they have a GPGPU to do the heavy lifting? Certainly not Apple.
iJohnHenry
Apr 15, 07:31 PM
:mad::mad::mad: I am seriously starting to get pissed.
Now you know why the Vatican is getting concerned.
Knowledge is now universal, on a massive scale, and the masters of spin are hard-pressed to jump into the fray.
I want to be around for the next 10 years, just to watch. :D
Now you know why the Vatican is getting concerned.
Knowledge is now universal, on a massive scale, and the masters of spin are hard-pressed to jump into the fray.
I want to be around for the next 10 years, just to watch. :D
marksman
Apr 7, 07:19 PM
I don't know if I buy this whole shortage thing.
If there is such a big shortage, why aren't people/businesses creating more production plants and capitalizing on the demand (which is only getting started from the looks of it). Where there is serious demand there is serious $$$ to be made!
It seems like basic economics to me but I've been wrong before...
There was no production of these screens two years ago. The demand has far outrstripped any expectations anyone would have had 3 years ago. It takes time to get new plants online.
I suspect Apple's long-term contracts with suppliers include future factories and production being brought online to help boost their ability to provide screens. It takes time though.
If there is such a big shortage, why aren't people/businesses creating more production plants and capitalizing on the demand (which is only getting started from the looks of it). Where there is serious demand there is serious $$$ to be made!
It seems like basic economics to me but I've been wrong before...
There was no production of these screens two years ago. The demand has far outrstripped any expectations anyone would have had 3 years ago. It takes time to get new plants online.
I suspect Apple's long-term contracts with suppliers include future factories and production being brought online to help boost their ability to provide screens. It takes time though.
netdog
Jul 31, 04:28 AM
Let me rephrase that: I think we're all getting way too ahead of ourselves. The source of this all is some "tech-unsavvy photographer that Apple hires" according to another crappy tech website. I don't know if it's true or not, but we're all just way too ahead of ourselves with free phone calls through AirPort or whatever.
I'll be VERY surprised if the Apple phone doesn't support Wifi.
I'll be very surprised if iChat doesn't start supporting phone calls.
I be somewhat surprised if the Apple phone doesn't support Skype, though they may develop an iChat to compete with Skype (a mistake in my opinion).
I'll be VERY surprised if the Apple phone doesn't support Wifi.
I'll be very surprised if iChat doesn't start supporting phone calls.
I be somewhat surprised if the Apple phone doesn't support Skype, though they may develop an iChat to compete with Skype (a mistake in my opinion).
gglockner
May 6, 12:52 AM
And let's not forget one thing: Apple moved from 680x0 to PPC and PPC to Intel because each time, the new CPU series offered a major improvement from the previous one. Today, Intel is the biggest innovator across the board in high-end CPUs - for desktop, server and laptops. There is no one on the horizon who can meet or beat Intel.
macbwizard
Mar 28, 09:45 AM
Who is this joker?
Apple�s apparent focus on software in its WWDC announcement backs up what my own sources are saying about the annual conference. That is, expect a software show in not a hardware event.
It's a DEVELOPERS CONFERENCE it is always focused on software. This announcement does nothing to prove either way.
Apple�s apparent focus on software in its WWDC announcement backs up what my own sources are saying about the annual conference. That is, expect a software show in not a hardware event.
It's a DEVELOPERS CONFERENCE it is always focused on software. This announcement does nothing to prove either way.
LaMerVipere
Aug 7, 04:26 PM
I wonder why Apple didn't include an IR port & remote with the Mac Pro? It also doesn't ship with Front Row.
It's especially odd considering Apple was touting Front Row as part of Leopard.
Hmm...
Also, if you hit the EJECT key on the keyboard while you have two optical drives installed, will they both open?
Questions, questions...
It's especially odd considering Apple was touting Front Row as part of Leopard.
Hmm...
Also, if you hit the EJECT key on the keyboard while you have two optical drives installed, will they both open?
Questions, questions...
Full of Win
Mar 29, 08:49 AM
So there is no transfer bandwidth / data caps?
.jpg "Pictures Underwater wallpaper")
QCassidy352
May 8, 05:25 PM
The usefulness of MobileMe just doesn't justify the $99 pricetag -- especially when other services offer something similar for free.
I disagree. First, nobody else offers it all in one place. Second, nobody else has the same simplicity. Third, there are features (most notably, find my iphone) that can't be replicated no matter what other service you use. And when you consider that you can get MM for $60 at Amazon and elsewhere, I think it's more than worth it. $5/month is worth it for any of things I just listed, or even just to be ad-free.
I disagree. First, nobody else offers it all in one place. Second, nobody else has the same simplicity. Third, there are features (most notably, find my iphone) that can't be replicated no matter what other service you use. And when you consider that you can get MM for $60 at Amazon and elsewhere, I think it's more than worth it. $5/month is worth it for any of things I just listed, or even just to be ad-free.
.jpg "Underwater Wallpaper")
macman4291
Jul 24, 12:39 AM
No. Processors Are Soldered In MacBooks and MacBook Pros So No Upgrades Are Possible.
The way you do the upgrade is by selling your current model and buying the next one. It's called rolling over your Mac for the next one. Some of us here have done it numerous times. It's not hard to get a good price for your used Mac. By doing this at the beginning of every update, it only cost you a few hundred dollars to move up each time.
Would it be worth it rolling over my 17 in macbook pro, w/ a 2.16 core duo to a macbook pro w/ merom chip and other new attributes. Would there be a significant difference in speed , ect. that would make it worth it. , and if so, what would i do about my registered applecare protection plan?
The way you do the upgrade is by selling your current model and buying the next one. It's called rolling over your Mac for the next one. Some of us here have done it numerous times. It's not hard to get a good price for your used Mac. By doing this at the beginning of every update, it only cost you a few hundred dollars to move up each time.
Would it be worth it rolling over my 17 in macbook pro, w/ a 2.16 core duo to a macbook pro w/ merom chip and other new attributes. Would there be a significant difference in speed , ect. that would make it worth it. , and if so, what would i do about my registered applecare protection plan?
Pez555
Mar 28, 10:28 AM
Sort of relieved no iPhone 5 announcements, Im firmly bogged down into a 2 year contract.
Relaxing wallpaper
Underwater HD Wallpapers
underwater 01 Premium HD
Underwater HD star fish
.jpg "Underwater Wallpaper HD Vol.10")
Underwater Wallpaper HD Vol.10
.jpg "Underwater Wallpaper HD Vol.1")
Underwater Wallpaper HD Vol.1
pixels : Wallpapers tagged
puckhead193
Apr 20, 10:47 AM
I thought that would be the upgrade this year... nothing special like the 3gs update.
If I can't run iOS 5 then maybe but i'm sure I could run it on my iphone 4
If I can't run iOS 5 then maybe but i'm sure I could run it on my iphone 4
Nostromo
May 6, 02:20 AM
If ARM is indeed able to make high-performance CPUs, then a move like this would be one of the most significant ones in the computing history. Let's face it: the x86 architecture is a dead end. Its needlessly complicated and builds on obsolete tech. Internally, the modern x86 CPUs aren't even x86 anymore - they decompose, recompile and reorder the machine code as they execute it. The ARM assembly is more suited for modern computing as it is more efficient as the x86 code and allows better CPU pipeline utilization.
The real question is whether ARM is able to create a CPU which is powerful enough to compete with Intel's offerings. The x86 may be inefficient but the sophisticated design of Intel CPUs results in great performance. ARM must really step on it to attain these levels.
P.S. If something like this should happen, I am sure that ARM will include hardware emulation layer for x86 instructions, for compatibility with older software. Any anyway, what does it cost to recompile an application? Indeed: nothing (if the application is competently written, that is).
I'm sure there will be another big change in processors and software.
ARM sounds a bit like cloud computing: many smaller processors.
It probably depends on the development of the ARM. Who knows what potential is in them.
The real question is whether ARM is able to create a CPU which is powerful enough to compete with Intel's offerings. The x86 may be inefficient but the sophisticated design of Intel CPUs results in great performance. ARM must really step on it to attain these levels.
P.S. If something like this should happen, I am sure that ARM will include hardware emulation layer for x86 instructions, for compatibility with older software. Any anyway, what does it cost to recompile an application? Indeed: nothing (if the application is competently written, that is).
I'm sure there will be another big change in processors and software.
ARM sounds a bit like cloud computing: many smaller processors.
It probably depends on the development of the ARM. Who knows what potential is in them.
MikhailT
May 7, 03:17 PM
Not sure what you guys think about this, but I think it would make sense on the iPhone if they somehow integrate iAds into it... otherwise I'm not sure why they would take a $99 service and make it free.
Because they aren't making any money off it now and making it free with iAds built in could bring in more profit for them?
It's the same reason Google can afford gmail with 8GB of storage for tens of millions of accounts.
Apple could make a bit of a profit integrating iWork/MobileMe/Lala along with iAds.
Because they aren't making any money off it now and making it free with iAds built in could bring in more profit for them?
It's the same reason Google can afford gmail with 8GB of storage for tens of millions of accounts.
Apple could make a bit of a profit integrating iWork/MobileMe/Lala along with iAds.
Multimedia
Aug 7, 07:22 PM
In the past, Apple has always issued a "White Paper" on new leading products. I can't see the link for that yet. Anyone find it? :confused:
MartiNZ
May 4, 08:39 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
Would be my preferred way. Enough with physical media. Very progressive of Apple.
And in a much more prepared way than progressive has been in the past - people are more prepared to lose the optical drive now than they were to lose the floppy drive back in '98. We have such good alternatives now!
I look forward to dling and presumably making a bootable memory stick. And hopefully we don't have to wait much longer :).
Would be my preferred way. Enough with physical media. Very progressive of Apple.
And in a much more prepared way than progressive has been in the past - people are more prepared to lose the optical drive now than they were to lose the floppy drive back in '98. We have such good alternatives now!
I look forward to dling and presumably making a bootable memory stick. And hopefully we don't have to wait much longer :).
rdlink
Apr 20, 06:02 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
I think Apple needs to concentrate more on improving iOS rather than adding a faster processor. Tbh I'm pretty fed up of my iPhone 4 as the is just looks boringly simple. Not everybody wants the same old os on every device. I think it's the omnia 7 next for me so I can have a change.
I agree. iOS is #1 reason why I haven't bought iPad yet - Android 3.0 looks so good on tablets that I haven't decided yet wheter to buy iPad or Android tablet. I'm not that interested in new iPhone models either, because iOS has basically looked the same since the first iPhone, and it's beginning to look very old and dated. I know it's simple to use, and for many people that's the biggest reason to choose iOS, but personally I like to try new things.
Agreed. I moved from my good ol' 3Gs to a ZTE-Blade a few months ago and have to say that despite the general black/grey colors that android apps seem to be forced to use with the UI, the 'desktop' of the phone is much more elegant and usable than the iPhone's. I'd really like to see Apple open up the API's a little more and maybe even allow us to completely swap out their homescreen for custom app based ones. It works well on the droids.
We all have our opinions, likes and dislikes. Personally, the things that you three cite are reasons why I have tried four different Android devices, and returned/sold every one of them. I, for one hope that Apple continues to march to the beat of their own drummer, and continues to go after the simpler aesthetic. Every Android device I have owned has seemed like a cheap, kludgy "Window-ized" version of the iPhone. More married to specs than to user experience. Don't get me wrong. I can geek it up with the best of 'em. But my first Mac several years ago was nothing short of a watershed moment in my computing life. It made me realize how tired I was getting of having to spend hours and hours customizing my interface just to make it usable, and tweaking my hardware to keep it running optimally (or some semblance thereof).
When I see links such as the one earlier in this forum, showing the hacks one must put in place just to make the battery on a Thunderbolt last more than half a day I shudder to think of all of the years I spent with (virtual) grease under my fingernails, and how nice it is now to just have devices that help me get through the day without having to constantly tinker under the hood.
Not to mention that the "openness" of Android allowing hardware manufacturers and carriers to conspire against subscribers has let the proverbial fox back in the henhouse.
Sure, I'd like to see IOS continue to evolve and wow us with a few revolutionary changes. But, IMO following the Android model is not the way to go. To each his own, I suppose.
I think Apple needs to concentrate more on improving iOS rather than adding a faster processor. Tbh I'm pretty fed up of my iPhone 4 as the is just looks boringly simple. Not everybody wants the same old os on every device. I think it's the omnia 7 next for me so I can have a change.
I agree. iOS is #1 reason why I haven't bought iPad yet - Android 3.0 looks so good on tablets that I haven't decided yet wheter to buy iPad or Android tablet. I'm not that interested in new iPhone models either, because iOS has basically looked the same since the first iPhone, and it's beginning to look very old and dated. I know it's simple to use, and for many people that's the biggest reason to choose iOS, but personally I like to try new things.
Agreed. I moved from my good ol' 3Gs to a ZTE-Blade a few months ago and have to say that despite the general black/grey colors that android apps seem to be forced to use with the UI, the 'desktop' of the phone is much more elegant and usable than the iPhone's. I'd really like to see Apple open up the API's a little more and maybe even allow us to completely swap out their homescreen for custom app based ones. It works well on the droids.
We all have our opinions, likes and dislikes. Personally, the things that you three cite are reasons why I have tried four different Android devices, and returned/sold every one of them. I, for one hope that Apple continues to march to the beat of their own drummer, and continues to go after the simpler aesthetic. Every Android device I have owned has seemed like a cheap, kludgy "Window-ized" version of the iPhone. More married to specs than to user experience. Don't get me wrong. I can geek it up with the best of 'em. But my first Mac several years ago was nothing short of a watershed moment in my computing life. It made me realize how tired I was getting of having to spend hours and hours customizing my interface just to make it usable, and tweaking my hardware to keep it running optimally (or some semblance thereof).
When I see links such as the one earlier in this forum, showing the hacks one must put in place just to make the battery on a Thunderbolt last more than half a day I shudder to think of all of the years I spent with (virtual) grease under my fingernails, and how nice it is now to just have devices that help me get through the day without having to constantly tinker under the hood.
Not to mention that the "openness" of Android allowing hardware manufacturers and carriers to conspire against subscribers has let the proverbial fox back in the henhouse.
Sure, I'd like to see IOS continue to evolve and wow us with a few revolutionary changes. But, IMO following the Android model is not the way to go. To each his own, I suppose.
KindredMAC
Aug 7, 04:58 PM
Mac Pro:
Not bad. Not bad at all. A couple gripes if you'll bear me the minute...
#1- Everything is BTO.
HD Vladstudio Wallpapers
Not bad. Not bad at all. A couple gripes if you'll bear me the minute...
#1- Everything is BTO.
cav23j
Nov 28, 11:30 AM
i never had any problems with the Boot Camp Partition until this
mac ran fine and i need to use Windows for certain programs
mac ran fine and i need to use Windows for certain programs
itcheroni
Apr 21, 12:50 AM
I'd love it if you could point out where you addressed this, because as a tax accountant, I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when a realized capital gain isn't income - if you have a realized net gain (ie amount realized is greater than your basis in the capital asset), you certainly have income. Certainly you could reinvest that net gain, but that doesn't mean you don't have income, that just means you realized a gain and reinvested the old basis and the gain (income). You're only taxed on realized gains that are recognized by the code (and you can net against realized losses) - sure, I could have an unrealized capital gain that isn't income, but I wouldn't be taxed on it either. Not that I don't agree with some of your points, but I'd really love the same clarification on this that most other posters have been asking for.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
Okay, but just for you, dude (when you disagree with me, we both can at least understand what we're disagreeing on. Other people here, well, it's just a waste of time. They start responding before even understanding my point). I guess I didn't make it clear earlier but my perspective on capital gains is in relation to inflation. If there were 100 widgets and 100 dollars, let's say the value of one widget was 1 dollar. If the central bank in charge of dollars decides to do some quantitative easing and increases the money supply to 200 dollars. This will lead to inflation with one widget valued at approximately 2 dollars. Now, why should one pay capital gains on this when, most likely, everything else costs more too. You didn't really receive any gain; the measurement of value (dollars) decreased.
For example, let's say there was a tax for getting taller. If the measurement of an inch or foot keeps decreasing, you will have to keep paying even though you're not getting taller.
Earlier I gave an example of the time between buying an apple and biting into it, likening it to cost basis and realized gain. We would find it ridiculous to pay a tax for any capital gain in the apple, but if I choose to save my money in gold until I use it, most people think I'm actually gaining something. If I were holding stock in a company that paid dividends, that might be different.
So from my perspective, the inflation (capital gain) itself is a tax, and we have to pay a tax for that tax. Right now, I don't believe the economy is really improving; the Fed is just creating enough inflation to improve the numbers. Stocks may be going up, but I think food prices are going up even faster. So what is the point of a capital gains on stocks if the proceeds from the sale nets you even less groceries than at the time of your cost basis? If a 1 ounce gold coin a hundred years ago buys you roughly the same today, what is the point of charging a capital gains? In this case, the coin would have gone from $20 to $1500, adding up to a capital gain of $1480. Sure, you could have save the $20 in cash instead of gold, but then you're "taxed" by inflation. Instead of paying your rent for several months, $20 will now buy you a haircut. Forget the "tax the rich" aspect of this; this makes it really difficult for poor people to save money because they are the ones most likely to save cash.
My concern is, how will we save our purchasing power? The government is actively decreasing the value of our money and anything we do to try and save our purchasing power is stripped away by taxes.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
Okay, but just for you, dude (when you disagree with me, we both can at least understand what we're disagreeing on. Other people here, well, it's just a waste of time. They start responding before even understanding my point). I guess I didn't make it clear earlier but my perspective on capital gains is in relation to inflation. If there were 100 widgets and 100 dollars, let's say the value of one widget was 1 dollar. If the central bank in charge of dollars decides to do some quantitative easing and increases the money supply to 200 dollars. This will lead to inflation with one widget valued at approximately 2 dollars. Now, why should one pay capital gains on this when, most likely, everything else costs more too. You didn't really receive any gain; the measurement of value (dollars) decreased.
For example, let's say there was a tax for getting taller. If the measurement of an inch or foot keeps decreasing, you will have to keep paying even though you're not getting taller.
Earlier I gave an example of the time between buying an apple and biting into it, likening it to cost basis and realized gain. We would find it ridiculous to pay a tax for any capital gain in the apple, but if I choose to save my money in gold until I use it, most people think I'm actually gaining something. If I were holding stock in a company that paid dividends, that might be different.
So from my perspective, the inflation (capital gain) itself is a tax, and we have to pay a tax for that tax. Right now, I don't believe the economy is really improving; the Fed is just creating enough inflation to improve the numbers. Stocks may be going up, but I think food prices are going up even faster. So what is the point of a capital gains on stocks if the proceeds from the sale nets you even less groceries than at the time of your cost basis? If a 1 ounce gold coin a hundred years ago buys you roughly the same today, what is the point of charging a capital gains? In this case, the coin would have gone from $20 to $1500, adding up to a capital gain of $1480. Sure, you could have save the $20 in cash instead of gold, but then you're "taxed" by inflation. Instead of paying your rent for several months, $20 will now buy you a haircut. Forget the "tax the rich" aspect of this; this makes it really difficult for poor people to save money because they are the ones most likely to save cash.
My concern is, how will we save our purchasing power? The government is actively decreasing the value of our money and anything we do to try and save our purchasing power is stripped away by taxes.
xionxiox
Apr 26, 02:08 PM
Who cares? I thought this was macrumors not android news...
Frobozz
Aug 7, 05:25 PM
what will happen if I use bootcamp and put in a PC grafic card?
This is a good question. What happens if I put my x1900xt from my PC into one of these? Would it run under windows? If it would, then it should run under OS X with the correct driver, because it wouldn't be a hardware issue.
I am willing to bet that, at least for the graphics cards with mac specific drivers, you could buy the PC equivalent. If you branch out to different model numbers, you might run into problems.
Anyone have a MacPro they could lend me to test out my theory? :-)
This is a good question. What happens if I put my x1900xt from my PC into one of these? Would it run under windows? If it would, then it should run under OS X with the correct driver, because it wouldn't be a hardware issue.
I am willing to bet that, at least for the graphics cards with mac specific drivers, you could buy the PC equivalent. If you branch out to different model numbers, you might run into problems.
Anyone have a MacPro they could lend me to test out my theory? :-)
gnasher729
Aug 4, 02:20 PM
Duh, I mean what advantage would 64-bit processors & software over 32-bit?
Usually there wouldn't be much advantage, except for applications that really need more than 4 GB of memory. In the case of x86 processors (both Intel and AMD), they have twice as many registers available in 64 bit mode; that is good for ten percent more performance.
Usually there wouldn't be much advantage, except for applications that really need more than 4 GB of memory. In the case of x86 processors (both Intel and AMD), they have twice as many registers available in 64 bit mode; that is good for ten percent more performance.
Don't panic
May 4, 01:50 PM
I would suggest that we always move forward. I think going backwards is only something worth considering IF am adventurer sustains significant injury and we had JUST left a room w an unused healing potion / talisman / chingas. Why give mscriv the opportunity to seed traps behind us?
well, we left two doors unopened in the initial room, so going back to the start room and look what's there, is a way to 'move forward'. besides, mscriv can put the trap/monster in the room in front too.
(and apparently you cannot use potions 'later')
do we agree on exploring this room now?
well, we left two doors unopened in the initial room, so going back to the start room and look what's there, is a way to 'move forward'. besides, mscriv can put the trap/monster in the room in front too.
(and apparently you cannot use potions 'later')
do we agree on exploring this room now?