Full of Win
Apr 28, 03:29 PM
The worm has turned.
BRLawyer
Sep 10, 05:02 AM
Please explain - I have no idea what "that" is....
---
Regardless of the tool, however, it is usually much better to let the OS dynamically schedule threads across the cores. Unless the programmer has some reason to try to control this, the alternative is some resources (CPUs) being overcommitted, while other CPUs are idle.
It doesn't matter who has the better tools - it's usually better to let the OS decide microsecond by microsecond how best to schedule the CPUs, than to have the developer make those decisions at edit time.
I've used the SetProcessAffinityMask APIs fairly often, but it's always been for specific test or benchmark situations. I have a hard time thinking of a situation where a general application would want to statically control the scheduler - it's just "bad think" to even try. (Except for those weird-a$$ NUMA Opterons - you can be really scr3wed if you have to go through HyperTransport to get to memory. I check NUMA topology, and use affinity to keep the AMD architecture from killing me.)
I also agree it's not the best strategy to deal with CPU scheduling...my example is linked to the following page, I presume...perhaps core affinity scheduling is also there:
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man1/hwprefs.1.html
---
Regardless of the tool, however, it is usually much better to let the OS dynamically schedule threads across the cores. Unless the programmer has some reason to try to control this, the alternative is some resources (CPUs) being overcommitted, while other CPUs are idle.
It doesn't matter who has the better tools - it's usually better to let the OS decide microsecond by microsecond how best to schedule the CPUs, than to have the developer make those decisions at edit time.
I've used the SetProcessAffinityMask APIs fairly often, but it's always been for specific test or benchmark situations. I have a hard time thinking of a situation where a general application would want to statically control the scheduler - it's just "bad think" to even try. (Except for those weird-a$$ NUMA Opterons - you can be really scr3wed if you have to go through HyperTransport to get to memory. I check NUMA topology, and use affinity to keep the AMD architecture from killing me.)
I also agree it's not the best strategy to deal with CPU scheduling...my example is linked to the following page, I presume...perhaps core affinity scheduling is also there:
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man1/hwprefs.1.html
Clive At Five
Sep 26, 09:18 AM
Hoboy....
Let me just say that even though I am a cingular customer, I don't like the sound of this.
1) Previous reports told us that Apple relinquished developing the "hardware" and settled for common components
2) This report tells us that Apple has settled for a carrier.
What is left for Apple to do? The body and the interface (and let me tell you, only one of those two is really important). And even though Apple will control the interface, they will not control any sort of mobile -> internet interaction, i.e. iTunes. Remember when Apple wanted to allow pseudo-iPhone mobile users to be able to d/l from the iT(M)S for identical prices but carriers wouldn't allow that because it severely undercut their pricing structure (download premiums). I would only assume that mobile downloading from iTS (if possible w/ the iPhone) will be more expensive than d/l-ing from home due to the carrier's resrictions.
*sigh* I guess I'm very skeptical, suddenly, that this iPhone will be worth all the attention it's getting. Maybe the interface will be so outstanding that it'll blow everyone's mind... but I'm not holding my breath.
-Clive
Let me just say that even though I am a cingular customer, I don't like the sound of this.
1) Previous reports told us that Apple relinquished developing the "hardware" and settled for common components
2) This report tells us that Apple has settled for a carrier.
What is left for Apple to do? The body and the interface (and let me tell you, only one of those two is really important). And even though Apple will control the interface, they will not control any sort of mobile -> internet interaction, i.e. iTunes. Remember when Apple wanted to allow pseudo-iPhone mobile users to be able to d/l from the iT(M)S for identical prices but carriers wouldn't allow that because it severely undercut their pricing structure (download premiums). I would only assume that mobile downloading from iTS (if possible w/ the iPhone) will be more expensive than d/l-ing from home due to the carrier's resrictions.
*sigh* I guess I'm very skeptical, suddenly, that this iPhone will be worth all the attention it's getting. Maybe the interface will be so outstanding that it'll blow everyone's mind... but I'm not holding my breath.
-Clive
primalman
Aug 23, 09:02 PM
So, in summary...
Apple pays Creative a one time fee of $100M to licence their patents.
Creative joins the 'Made for iPod' program making accessories for their competitor, Apple, who gets money for 'Made for iPod'.
Creative still HAS to defend it's patent against other competitors - that's the nature of patents - or licence it to them. If they do, Apple takes some of that money too. In a round-a-bout way, Apple is getting money back from it's competitors. Nice.
Creative have a much better case because Apple settled.
Creative still owns a valid patent. If Apple had won, there would be no patent so anyone could copy the Creative/Apple style interface.
Apple continues on as if nothing has happened. No long court case delaying sales. No injunctions to halt imports.
Explain to me why people think Apple lost here?
Creative knew it was about to get reamed by Microsoft's Zune which it's players aren't compatible with. They knew to get out of the market. Instead of legitimising Microsoft's offering, they've tied up with Apple. It might bug us that Apple have legitimised a bogus patent but it's otherwise very, very smart.
Yes, this is the reality. It was a wise business move, thinking long-term. Someone said it earlier, but Apple plays good chess, this is why they have over $8 billion in the bank.
The quote above should have been the last post.
Apple pays Creative a one time fee of $100M to licence their patents.
Creative joins the 'Made for iPod' program making accessories for their competitor, Apple, who gets money for 'Made for iPod'.
Creative still HAS to defend it's patent against other competitors - that's the nature of patents - or licence it to them. If they do, Apple takes some of that money too. In a round-a-bout way, Apple is getting money back from it's competitors. Nice.
Creative have a much better case because Apple settled.
Creative still owns a valid patent. If Apple had won, there would be no patent so anyone could copy the Creative/Apple style interface.
Apple continues on as if nothing has happened. No long court case delaying sales. No injunctions to halt imports.
Explain to me why people think Apple lost here?
Creative knew it was about to get reamed by Microsoft's Zune which it's players aren't compatible with. They knew to get out of the market. Instead of legitimising Microsoft's offering, they've tied up with Apple. It might bug us that Apple have legitimised a bogus patent but it's otherwise very, very smart.
Yes, this is the reality. It was a wise business move, thinking long-term. Someone said it earlier, but Apple plays good chess, this is why they have over $8 billion in the bank.
The quote above should have been the last post.
JMP
Apr 30, 06:53 PM
Anger management is a good thing.
Thank you
Thank you
BWhaler
Sep 27, 04:43 AM
Enough with the dance. Release the product already.
Every cell phone on the market sucks in some way. I'd love to have an Apple phone which simply just works.
Every cell phone on the market sucks in some way. I'd love to have an Apple phone which simply just works.
Eidorian
Apr 14, 12:52 PM
The PC industry is plagued with lowest common denominator, low cost crap.
Apple and Intel are trying to move forward. We should support that.I do not appear to recall Apple extolling the Intel HD 3000.
Otherwise, I am still waiting for proof that Thunderbolt is on the Panther Point controller and I find it unlikely it is on the processor itself given the current PCIe hackjob to implement it.
Apple and Intel are trying to move forward. We should support that.I do not appear to recall Apple extolling the Intel HD 3000.
Otherwise, I am still waiting for proof that Thunderbolt is on the Panther Point controller and I find it unlikely it is on the processor itself given the current PCIe hackjob to implement it.
kansast
Sep 13, 09:52 PM
But why should it? This isn't Motorola... this is Apple. They are supposed to be the masters of industrial design and software integration. No doubt the phone will have an awesome user interface, but I expect more from Apple than sticking an antenna and GSM chip inside a nano, putting a keypad underneath it, and calling it a day. This couldn't have taken very long to dream up... it seems like the most obvious and un-Apple idea of them all.
If this is the fabled iPhone then Apple is losing its touch... the design was already done when they introduced the nano.
I hope Apple wants this to be a phone with iPod functionality opposed to a nano with phone functionallity. The difference is huge. What is the primary function of this device? To play music or use as a phone? Thus far it looks like a nano with a software update and a GSM chip sadly.
that's just it.. if it is an ipod/iphone.. any phone with a slide out keyboard, which apparently is getting to be popular.. and has a limited number of buttons ALWAYS available.. then on the iPHone those limited buttons are created using the iPod clickwheel.. so for me, I think it could be brilliant. ANd by now we all know how to use the clickwheel, without even looking at it.
If this is the fabled iPhone then Apple is losing its touch... the design was already done when they introduced the nano.
I hope Apple wants this to be a phone with iPod functionality opposed to a nano with phone functionallity. The difference is huge. What is the primary function of this device? To play music or use as a phone? Thus far it looks like a nano with a software update and a GSM chip sadly.
that's just it.. if it is an ipod/iphone.. any phone with a slide out keyboard, which apparently is getting to be popular.. and has a limited number of buttons ALWAYS available.. then on the iPHone those limited buttons are created using the iPod clickwheel.. so for me, I think it could be brilliant. ANd by now we all know how to use the clickwheel, without even looking at it.
yg17
Apr 25, 09:18 AM
Interesting coincidence. I just got off the line with someone who just told me how her brother was killed 2 weeks ago in a car wreck. A 16 year old was doing 55 in a 35 in a brand new Toyota truck, he hit her brother, t-boned, and he was killed instantly.
It's a shame, it's always the innocent ones who die. Every single time I hear about a fatal wreck on the news, the guy driving like an idiot walks away without a scratch and the innocent people in the other car die. I'd have no problem with 16 year old kids driving like idiots if there was a way to guarantee they're the ones who get killed and the person they hit walks away - natural selection would've removed those idiots from the gene pool by now.
And for everyone else on here who is a young male and doesn't drive like an idiot, you can thank Don here for your sky high insurance rates.
It's a shame, it's always the innocent ones who die. Every single time I hear about a fatal wreck on the news, the guy driving like an idiot walks away without a scratch and the innocent people in the other car die. I'd have no problem with 16 year old kids driving like idiots if there was a way to guarantee they're the ones who get killed and the person they hit walks away - natural selection would've removed those idiots from the gene pool by now.
And for everyone else on here who is a young male and doesn't drive like an idiot, you can thank Don here for your sky high insurance rates.
124151155
Apr 15, 09:02 AM
It's be a good idea if Thunderbolt was capable of handling USB 3 as well, like the thunderbolt port in the MacBook Pro can also do mini display.
I guess that way it'd at least be used more, but also nobody would be uncertain about getting Thunderbolt because they know even if it is a flop the port is still useful...
I guess that way it'd at least be used more, but also nobody would be uncertain about getting Thunderbolt because they know even if it is a flop the port is still useful...
iMikeT
Aug 28, 12:34 PM
Quiet upgrade tomorrow?
sushi
Sep 20, 03:24 AM
I would be exstatic to get a 720p movie, and like you, I would certainly have no problem waiting the time it would take to download it. I just want HD downloadable content from iTMS, which is why the iTV has me so excited. I may hold off on getting that HD-DVD player until I learn more about it.
And the download, would be platform independent with regards to BluRay or HD-DVD. Cool.
And the download, would be platform independent with regards to BluRay or HD-DVD. Cool.
JGowan
Sep 5, 05:14 PM
I've seen some posts about transferring "that much data" in disbelief. I calculate that a two hour movie will no more about 450MB. I hope it is, of course. This is based on a 1-hr episode of Lost is about 200MB. I fudge in 50MB for the fact that each Lost episode never is EXACTLY 1 hour.
I can transfer that size (450MB) from my ReplayTV wirelessly to my PowerBook in less than a half hour with my Airport Extreme Basestation.
So... I see no problem. Perhaps the show will be delayed a little but not more than a few minutes
I can transfer that size (450MB) from my ReplayTV wirelessly to my PowerBook in less than a half hour with my Airport Extreme Basestation.
So... I see no problem. Perhaps the show will be delayed a little but not more than a few minutes
AidenShaw
Sep 9, 12:27 PM
Kentsfield is two Conroes on a single die. They don't share cache like the previous Pentium D chips. So they'll each have 4 MB of cache and then communicate over the front side bus.
Minor terminology correction - the "die" is the silicon chip, the "package" is the carrier with the pins....
http://www.xbitlabs.com/web/2006-6-22.html
Kentsfield consists of two Conroe dies, each featuring two cores and 4MB of L2 cache.
See http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/top_secret_intel_processor_plans_uncovered/page4.html
(this shows a Pentium D image, but Kentsfield is doing the same trick.)
Minor terminology correction - the "die" is the silicon chip, the "package" is the carrier with the pins....
http://www.xbitlabs.com/web/2006-6-22.html
Kentsfield consists of two Conroe dies, each featuring two cores and 4MB of L2 cache.
See http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/top_secret_intel_processor_plans_uncovered/page4.html
(this shows a Pentium D image, but Kentsfield is doing the same trick.)
iMacZealot
Sep 20, 08:00 PM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
I find a few things wrong with this:
1) I don't think EU chose GSM because it was European and not American --- according to Wikipedia, GSM publicly came out in 1990 and CDMA (or IS-95) in 1996.
2) I think it's hard to compare IS-95 and GSM. It's comparing apples to oranges. Sure, there are some things better about them, but CDMA and TDMA are completely different techniques and hard to compare.
3) When you're talking about CDMA being used in future technologies in Europe, if you mean UMTS, that's not CDMA. It's the next generation GSM 3G technology, but uses wideband CDMA or WCDMA in the process. It is considered GSM technology.
4) If you're choosing your new cellular provider based on whether they use CDMA or GSM, that's sad because you're going to get a phone that makes calls anyway. The rest, in my opinion, differs between what the execs at T-Cingizon PCS are thinking.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
I find a few things wrong with this:
1) I don't think EU chose GSM because it was European and not American --- according to Wikipedia, GSM publicly came out in 1990 and CDMA (or IS-95) in 1996.
2) I think it's hard to compare IS-95 and GSM. It's comparing apples to oranges. Sure, there are some things better about them, but CDMA and TDMA are completely different techniques and hard to compare.
3) When you're talking about CDMA being used in future technologies in Europe, if you mean UMTS, that's not CDMA. It's the next generation GSM 3G technology, but uses wideband CDMA or WCDMA in the process. It is considered GSM technology.
4) If you're choosing your new cellular provider based on whether they use CDMA or GSM, that's sad because you're going to get a phone that makes calls anyway. The rest, in my opinion, differs between what the execs at T-Cingizon PCS are thinking.
Dave00
Mar 29, 12:58 PM
It's utter silliness to try to predict market share for four years from now. Especially laughable that they try to predict it to the tenth of a percentage point. Four years way more than enough time for a new player to come in and dominate the field, not to mention time for a new kind of phone/device to appear.
Dave
Dave
pyroza
Apr 25, 06:19 PM
Getting rid of the optical drive would be stupid. No way to burn CDs (yes, I buy CDs because I like supporting artists and I like higher quality music) and no way to watch DVDs (no DVD player or TV here in my dorm room).
abscond
Sep 26, 07:22 AM
I hope it isn't O2, that would be a shame. To be honest, any network lockins would be bad.
My vote would be Orange if I had the choice.
My vote would be Orange if I had the choice.
snakelda
Mar 22, 02:55 PM
Finally some Mac rumors.. :D
Lol yeah true
Lol yeah true
Willis
Sep 10, 05:39 AM
Well at least people who have brought MacPros can breathe easy now for a while. Basically because these Kentsfield's arent pin compatable with Woodcrest.
However, trying to find a product that can take conroe is sort of pointless. There's no proof or rumours that Apple are working on a Midrange tower. AND even if Apple did release one with just a Conroe chip in it, it would eat iMac sales.
It'd be nice to see one, but not likely
However, trying to find a product that can take conroe is sort of pointless. There's no proof or rumours that Apple are working on a Midrange tower. AND even if Apple did release one with just a Conroe chip in it, it would eat iMac sales.
It'd be nice to see one, but not likely
Full of Win
Mar 30, 11:27 AM
App may be generic, but does that also make App Store generic ?
ChrisA
Apr 4, 12:18 PM
Seems unfair to kill someone for robbery. Yes they're breaking the law, but only deserve a prison sentence. Do you really really think someone should be shot and killed for attempting to steal a few laptops and smash a few windows? If you do then man you have issues.
If it were only robbery you are correct. In fact the guard would be in jail now. But these guys shot at a guard. When you do that the crime changes from robbery to attempted murder. It is also a really stupid move because I'd bet a bunch any armed guard spends some time at the shooting range. Many of them are off duty cops or ex-military police or have gotten training some place.
If it were only robbery you are correct. In fact the guard would be in jail now. But these guys shot at a guard. When you do that the crime changes from robbery to attempted murder. It is also a really stupid move because I'd bet a bunch any armed guard spends some time at the shooting range. Many of them are off duty cops or ex-military police or have gotten training some place.
Xenc
Apr 4, 12:55 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
I am disgusted that this post has a high positive/negative ratio..... this is terrible.
It depends how you look at it.
Some may be voting "Positive" on the fact that the security guard survived the shootout and the robbers were thwarted, or perhaps because they feel justice was served. Or they could be voting in reaction to the arguably heroic actions of the guard.
Likewise, people may vote "Negative" for the fact that a life was lost, or are expressing their opinions against gun crime, or against the crime itself.
tl;dr The ratings don't mean much for this story.
I am disgusted that this post has a high positive/negative ratio..... this is terrible.
It depends how you look at it.
Some may be voting "Positive" on the fact that the security guard survived the shootout and the robbers were thwarted, or perhaps because they feel justice was served. Or they could be voting in reaction to the arguably heroic actions of the guard.
Likewise, people may vote "Negative" for the fact that a life was lost, or are expressing their opinions against gun crime, or against the crime itself.
tl;dr The ratings don't mean much for this story.
Huntn
Apr 25, 09:22 AM
Originally Posted by Huntn View Post
I'd say since the high point of post WWII, we as a society in the U.S. have done our best to eradicate The New Deal and move back to reaching for magnificant wealth while screwing each other over?
really? we've been getting LESS progressive since the new deal? I was under the impression that our government is GIGANTIC and tries to babysit us at every turn while simultaneously urinating on the constitution
There is vision and there is execution. Our democratic system of zigging and zagging every 4 to 8 years is hurting us. And no one involved in running government even when conservatives with the stated intent of dismantling government seems to be able to remove the inefficiencies.
I see 3 paths:
1. Anarchy- no government
2. Minimalist government- handles very basics of infrastructure and laws and enforcement. When it comes to social economic issues, every person for them selves.
3. Caretaker government- takes care of everything for us.
I think we should be somewhere between #2 and 3, however this is based on an efficient government which can be argued is an oxymoron. ;) When people in economic power display morals, then less regulation is needed, otherwise you need to regulate the hell out of them. For the last 30 years we have been sliding into the realm of pure unadulterated greed. If you don't have a people oriented government acting as the referee, then you'll find yourself right back in the 1800s with the little people holding up the barrons and Captains of Industry upon their shoulders. That is not equitable imo.
I'd say since the high point of post WWII, we as a society in the U.S. have done our best to eradicate The New Deal and move back to reaching for magnificant wealth while screwing each other over?
really? we've been getting LESS progressive since the new deal? I was under the impression that our government is GIGANTIC and tries to babysit us at every turn while simultaneously urinating on the constitution
There is vision and there is execution. Our democratic system of zigging and zagging every 4 to 8 years is hurting us. And no one involved in running government even when conservatives with the stated intent of dismantling government seems to be able to remove the inefficiencies.
I see 3 paths:
1. Anarchy- no government
2. Minimalist government- handles very basics of infrastructure and laws and enforcement. When it comes to social economic issues, every person for them selves.
3. Caretaker government- takes care of everything for us.
I think we should be somewhere between #2 and 3, however this is based on an efficient government which can be argued is an oxymoron. ;) When people in economic power display morals, then less regulation is needed, otherwise you need to regulate the hell out of them. For the last 30 years we have been sliding into the realm of pure unadulterated greed. If you don't have a people oriented government acting as the referee, then you'll find yourself right back in the 1800s with the little people holding up the barrons and Captains of Industry upon their shoulders. That is not equitable imo.
0 comments:
Post a Comment