Al1n
Nov 15, 05:17 PM
Luminor Panerai. Can't beat that!
Haha, my gf bought me the same watch (PAM00005) for my birthday few weeks ago.
It's a very nice watch, i love it. Hope you get yours.:)
Haha, my gf bought me the same watch (PAM00005) for my birthday few weeks ago.
It's a very nice watch, i love it. Hope you get yours.:)
jessica.
Sep 15, 07:35 AM
og's
251762
You have really small feet. ;)
251762
You have really small feet. ;)
bigpatky
Apr 12, 09:13 AM
this really has to stop.
twoodcc
Sep 18, 11:24 PM
anyone with a newer mac pro or xserve can kill in the stats. should be a nice incentive. i am excited about mac folding for the first time in a while
i wonder how the octo 2.26 does
i wonder how the octo 2.26 does
more...
jtara
Apr 14, 11:14 AM
Interesting possibility. It would be extremely difficult to emulate a complete iOS device (custom ASICs and all). But Apple could emulate just enough ARM instructions to emulate an app that was compiled by Xcode & LLVM (which would limit the way ARM instructions were generated), and used only legal public iOS APIs (instead of emulating hardware and all the registers), which could be translated in Cocoa APIs to display on a Mac OS X machine.
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
flopticalcube
Apr 13, 06:46 PM
I see no benefits here.
more...
daneoni
May 1, 10:04 PM
Every dog has it's day. Still doesn't mean it's over though.
chrmjenkins
Apr 22, 03:12 PM
Really? So the fact that they did not have laptops with mainstream mobile quad core CPUs before Sandy Bridge when every other computers manufacturer had them is "immaterial" now? With LTE it's the same story all over. After they finally get in a year or two you'll probably be able to say again that it's immaterial. I bet it's very material to those who want iPhone with LTE now. Another major problem here is that Apple sticks to having just one model of iPhone (CDMA vs GSM differences aside). As if all people wanted the same thing. They don't.
No, you're trying to bring attention Apple's lack of using the latest components as why they won't use LTE. That's not the case anymore. They use mobile quad cores now. Therefore, your argument is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what they used to do if their most recent action is different. You need a complete history of them not doing it to support your point. That history doesn't exist.
Apple has no interest in making different sizes/models of iPhones. If you don't care for that, apple isn't for you. They are a greatest common denominator company.
No, you're trying to bring attention Apple's lack of using the latest components as why they won't use LTE. That's not the case anymore. They use mobile quad cores now. Therefore, your argument is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what they used to do if their most recent action is different. You need a complete history of them not doing it to support your point. That history doesn't exist.
Apple has no interest in making different sizes/models of iPhones. If you don't care for that, apple isn't for you. They are a greatest common denominator company.
more...
Reach9
Apr 18, 10:12 PM
Are you guys for real?
I'm not really into apple or apple products, but there is no big mystery behind the string ix.Mac.MarketingName (except for 'Mac', that is)
'ix' is and object or a variable in whatever programming language they've written this in.
'Mac' and 'MarketingName' are either methods or keys (in a hash) belonging to the 'ix' variable/object.
Let me illustrate with a simple javascript/JSON variable:
var ix = {
justin bieber and selena gomez
more...
selena gomez who says music
more.
more...
more.
american idol pia voted off.
more...
more.
more.
more...
more.
more.
That stuff looks awesome and
I'm not really into apple or apple products, but there is no big mystery behind the string ix.Mac.MarketingName (except for 'Mac', that is)
'ix' is and object or a variable in whatever programming language they've written this in.
'Mac' and 'MarketingName' are either methods or keys (in a hash) belonging to the 'ix' variable/object.
Let me illustrate with a simple javascript/JSON variable:
var ix = {
IJ Reilly
Jul 22, 11:22 AM
Microsoft bought 150 million in non-voting stock. Hardly a controlling interest. They have since sold most if not all of that stock for a tidy profit. Apple in turn dropped the "Look and Feel" lawsuit (which they weren't going to win anyway) and MS promised updates to "Office" and IE. Microsoft has NO significant financial stake in Apple.
It had nothing to do with the "look and feel" lawsuit. Apple had lost that one five years earlier. The legal issues still remaining between Apple and Microsoft in 1997 were over multimedia.
Edit: And FWIW, Microsoft's "investment" in Apple amounted to about 5% of their market value at the time, which would hardly have been a controlling interest even if they stock bought them any votes, which it did not. Microsoft is thought to have divested the shares in 2000.
It had nothing to do with the "look and feel" lawsuit. Apple had lost that one five years earlier. The legal issues still remaining between Apple and Microsoft in 1997 were over multimedia.
Edit: And FWIW, Microsoft's "investment" in Apple amounted to about 5% of their market value at the time, which would hardly have been a controlling interest even if they stock bought them any votes, which it did not. Microsoft is thought to have divested the shares in 2000.
more...
Joe The Dragon
Jun 6, 11:24 AM
Why is there no spending limit that you can set per purchase?
cable and sat tv lets you set per PPV purchase limits so why not apple?
cable and sat tv lets you set per PPV purchase limits so why not apple?
-groovatious-
Apr 22, 04:17 PM
How the heck are you supposed to hold that up to your ear for any length of time?
No thanks.
No thanks.
more...
iliketyla
Apr 26, 07:13 PM
I worked at McDonald's for a couple months when I was in high school. I was never "trained" not to intervene in conflicts. It never even came up.
But just being who I am I can tell you right now I would've thrown those bi***** through those windows if I saw them molly whopping on an individual who wasn't fighting back.
But just being who I am I can tell you right now I would've thrown those bi***** through those windows if I saw them molly whopping on an individual who wasn't fighting back.
Macnoviz
Jul 27, 04:22 PM
I like your idea and I think it would work in many situations if there is indeed going to be a "transition phase" toward a new type of connection format. However, I'll stick by my prediction as it offers the maximum benefit for Apple and its third party partners while keeping the whole user interaction simpler and more elegant. The Nike situation is different in the respect that it is really the only way to make a product like that work�can't have a bunch of wires getting in the way of running. I know the iPod Hi-Fi probably isn't selling well enough for Apple to worry that a new connection format would hurt their own profit margin much, but there are a LOT of third party partners out there that have only recently given it their best because Apple has probably assured them that the dock connector will be around for quite some time, so third party R&D won't be a black hole or recurring expense in that area. It is what has helped the accessory market evolve to the point it has, which has benefitted Apple immensly-don't think Apple doesn't realize that fact! It is also what is missing from the also-ran MP3 manufacturers: not enough consistency to make it worth their investment to produce for those products.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Of course, it COULD have both....
how about
a 30 $ optional wireless receiver that acts as a female dock connector to plug into the existing iPod docks?
I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Of course, it COULD have both....
how about
a 30 $ optional wireless receiver that acts as a female dock connector to plug into the existing iPod docks?
more...
Chundles
Oct 24, 09:21 AM
But I can't decide weather to go for the slower 200 GB drive, or the somewhat faster 160GB drive.
I know that you can never have too much disk space, but I'm wondering what the performance differential will be.
I'm currently running on a 7200 rpm 100 GB (with only 10 GB free), and either of the options in the new machines will be slower (but cooler and less battery hungry)... am I going to be unhappy with a 4200 rpm 200 GB drive? Does anyone know the cache size or any other specs for the 200 GB drive?
4200rpm is dog-slow. Go for the 5400rpm drive and use the money you saved for a nice big FW800 external HDD.
I know that you can never have too much disk space, but I'm wondering what the performance differential will be.
I'm currently running on a 7200 rpm 100 GB (with only 10 GB free), and either of the options in the new machines will be slower (but cooler and less battery hungry)... am I going to be unhappy with a 4200 rpm 200 GB drive? Does anyone know the cache size or any other specs for the 200 GB drive?
4200rpm is dog-slow. Go for the 5400rpm drive and use the money you saved for a nice big FW800 external HDD.
PCClone
Apr 24, 02:08 PM
When one company acquires another like that, they don't just tear down all the old company's equipment and replace it with their own. If that were the case AT&T would simply skip over the whole mess with getting the deal approved by the US Department of Justice and the FCC and just buy a crapload of equipment to put up themselves with that $39 billion.
If the deal is approved T-Mobile's assets will be integrated into AT&T's network and AT&T is probably having all their handset manufacturers run similar testing on T-Mobile equipment to ensure compatibility.
Apple is not "wasting money" on a cell phone provider that is going away, and T-Mobile is not "getting" the iPhone.
You don't have a clue, but state your opinion as fact. Pretty funny stuff.
If the deal is approved T-Mobile's assets will be integrated into AT&T's network and AT&T is probably having all their handset manufacturers run similar testing on T-Mobile equipment to ensure compatibility.
Apple is not "wasting money" on a cell phone provider that is going away, and T-Mobile is not "getting" the iPhone.
You don't have a clue, but state your opinion as fact. Pretty funny stuff.
more...
mikemac11
Apr 15, 01:53 PM
Is there an option to make iCal look normal?
no
no
nick004
Oct 24, 09:17 AM
Is it me, or Apple is also offering new 750 Gb Hard drives as an option for Mac Pros and iMacs?
Wonder if there are any other surprises hiding amoung the spec pages?
Wonder if there are any other surprises hiding amoung the spec pages?
MacProCpo
Nov 27, 05:52 PM
Thanks guys! I think I got it working. My WU size went from 4mb to 28mb:)
KingYaba
May 2, 02:41 AM
Why?
Are we going to create a grave or a shrine to him? My hope is, that has been well-documented with witnesses galore.
Are we going to create a grave or a shrine to him? My hope is, that has been well-documented with witnesses galore.
FreeState
May 1, 10:05 PM
I'm glad he's no longer a threat, but really wish we could have caught him with out spending ourselves into generations of debt...
displaced
Jul 24, 04:16 PM
Good timing :)
Since my MBP arrived, I've been toying with the idea of moving the Mac Mini downstairs and hooking it up to the TV. Already bought myself a copy of Remote Buddy and a Keyspan Remote control. A bluetooth Mighty Mouse would match up nicely.
I already have a Logitech bluetooth mouse, but it requires a charging station. I'd rather keep the number of cables, docks and misc. paraphernalia down to a minimum in the living room. A basic AA-driven mouse would be great.
Since my MBP arrived, I've been toying with the idea of moving the Mac Mini downstairs and hooking it up to the TV. Already bought myself a copy of Remote Buddy and a Keyspan Remote control. A bluetooth Mighty Mouse would match up nicely.
I already have a Logitech bluetooth mouse, but it requires a charging station. I'd rather keep the number of cables, docks and misc. paraphernalia down to a minimum in the living room. A basic AA-driven mouse would be great.
tigress666
Apr 29, 01:03 AM
It's thinking like that which makes lotteries so successful for raising revenue in so many states. Total cost is always a factor, and total cost includes not only plan costs for two years, but it also includes the value of the respective phones at the end of the contract period. At a minimum, a 3GS is going to be worth $100 less than an iPhone 4 after 2 years. So, with a total expenditure in the $1500-$2000 range, you'll be lucky if you save $50 in the long run by going with the slower, lower resolution, older technology model. Hardly worth it.
Ok, that works if you are thinking of getting a cellphone vs. not getting a cellphone.
But when you are thinking of getting what type of cellphone, no, it doesn't count. Cause by deciding you are getting a cellphone but trying to decide which type, you already committed to buying the plan,what type of cellphone does not affect the cost of the plan, you are going to pay it regardless. So the cost of the plan really doesn't count for the cost of the cellphone when you are comparing cellphones together.
Maybe if we were comparing getting a landline to a cellphone (where the costs of the service for the landline are going to be drastically different).
Or even if we were comparing going from AT&T to Verizon there might be some small difference. So only if the cellphones are on different networks (with the iphone though, this only matters if you are comparing to a T-Mobile or Sprint phone as you can get an iphone on either AT&T or Verizon so the plan cost will be the same for the iphone as whatever other phone you want to get on either network).
You still don't get the point.
The point is when we are comparing different cellphones to each other, the service doesn't matter cause if you are getting the cellphone, you are going to pay the service regardless and which cellphone you get isn't going to affect the service's price. Therefore it is irrelevant when talking cost of one cellphone vs. another to bring in the cost o the contract.
Ok, that works if you are thinking of getting a cellphone vs. not getting a cellphone.
But when you are thinking of getting what type of cellphone, no, it doesn't count. Cause by deciding you are getting a cellphone but trying to decide which type, you already committed to buying the plan,what type of cellphone does not affect the cost of the plan, you are going to pay it regardless. So the cost of the plan really doesn't count for the cost of the cellphone when you are comparing cellphones together.
Maybe if we were comparing getting a landline to a cellphone (where the costs of the service for the landline are going to be drastically different).
Or even if we were comparing going from AT&T to Verizon there might be some small difference. So only if the cellphones are on different networks (with the iphone though, this only matters if you are comparing to a T-Mobile or Sprint phone as you can get an iphone on either AT&T or Verizon so the plan cost will be the same for the iphone as whatever other phone you want to get on either network).
You still don't get the point.
The point is when we are comparing different cellphones to each other, the service doesn't matter cause if you are getting the cellphone, you are going to pay the service regardless and which cellphone you get isn't going to affect the service's price. Therefore it is irrelevant when talking cost of one cellphone vs. another to bring in the cost o the contract.
appleguy123
Apr 29, 01:34 PM
Thanks. The waiting sucks.
I’m amazed how well AppleGuy was able to pick the two WW’s.
:D being a god so often has its advantages, beside humilating Moyank.
It's actually kind of weird, I'm a terrible judge of character in real life, but I'm pretty good at telling when people are hiding something online. Maybe if mscriv were here he could tell me why. For a fee.
I hope your other scan goes well. :)
I’m amazed how well AppleGuy was able to pick the two WW’s.
:D being a god so often has its advantages, beside humilating Moyank.
It's actually kind of weird, I'm a terrible judge of character in real life, but I'm pretty good at telling when people are hiding something online. Maybe if mscriv were here he could tell me why. For a fee.
I hope your other scan goes well. :)
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий