shawnce
Jul 19, 04:23 PM
I see a little confusion on numbers, for the straight facts review the two PDFs provided by Apple (data summary is a good one to understand unit volumes)...
Q306 Data Summary (http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q306data_sum.pdf)
Q306 Financial Statements (http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q306fin_statements.pdf)
Q306 Data Summary (http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q306data_sum.pdf)
Q306 Financial Statements (http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q306fin_statements.pdf)
eddietr
Jan 11, 09:40 PM
what if this slim macbook had a touch pad keyboard? that would be one way to make it smaller
That would be interesting.
The one thing miss about my old thinkpad is the eraser mouse thing in the middle of the keyboard.
Not that the eraser head is that great of a pointing device, it's just that not having to move your hands from typing to moving to typing to moving is really convenient.
They could achieve the same by just merging the keyboard and trackpad together.
That would be interesting.
The one thing miss about my old thinkpad is the eraser mouse thing in the middle of the keyboard.
Not that the eraser head is that great of a pointing device, it's just that not having to move your hands from typing to moving to typing to moving is really convenient.
They could achieve the same by just merging the keyboard and trackpad together.
ltgator333
Mar 28, 11:54 PM
wow... this lack of faith in Apple is suprising really. This company has been sitting about where it's at right now for the last 10 years or so, and all the sudden they're just gonna die? I think the reasons why this will not happen have been beaten to death, so I spair you repeating them.
The whole thing with Adobe/M$ pulling products is ridiculous as well. This has happened a million times, Apple makes an app and a third party realizes they can't compete with this new app and either lowers the amount of effort they put into their app or just pull the plug on it. Anyone remember MacAmp? Toast? The examples are readily available.
As for cheap Macs, hell yeah I'd like to see some. The whole reason you see a PC listed under the computers I personally own is because it was cheaper for me to build my own dual proc PC workstation that buy a Mac- other than a non-upgradeable computer that also to me isn't all that good looking, the iMac or eMac. The problem is Apple's business model works, and even though Apple makes computers, being they are a business, making money is still the #1 thing, if they're making $ there's no reason to change anything real drasticly.
I would like to see Apple come out with a headless desktop, but not have it be a direct replacement for iMac or eMac, an interim of upgradeability between the PMac line (which as for how desktop machines go, this thing is very upgrade freindly on a whole, the PMac G4's especially) and the iMac with virtually none. A machine that has a AGP slot, processor can be removed/upgraded, one HD and one optical drive bay and maybe 1 or 2 PCI-X slots would be a perfect fit upgradeability wise between they're high and low end. I beleive that if they were to do this I would price it similarly to the iMac, basicly a trade-off monitor for upgrades.. put the right spin on it and I think there's a market for a machine like this.
The whole thing with Adobe/M$ pulling products is ridiculous as well. This has happened a million times, Apple makes an app and a third party realizes they can't compete with this new app and either lowers the amount of effort they put into their app or just pull the plug on it. Anyone remember MacAmp? Toast? The examples are readily available.
As for cheap Macs, hell yeah I'd like to see some. The whole reason you see a PC listed under the computers I personally own is because it was cheaper for me to build my own dual proc PC workstation that buy a Mac- other than a non-upgradeable computer that also to me isn't all that good looking, the iMac or eMac. The problem is Apple's business model works, and even though Apple makes computers, being they are a business, making money is still the #1 thing, if they're making $ there's no reason to change anything real drasticly.
I would like to see Apple come out with a headless desktop, but not have it be a direct replacement for iMac or eMac, an interim of upgradeability between the PMac line (which as for how desktop machines go, this thing is very upgrade freindly on a whole, the PMac G4's especially) and the iMac with virtually none. A machine that has a AGP slot, processor can be removed/upgraded, one HD and one optical drive bay and maybe 1 or 2 PCI-X slots would be a perfect fit upgradeability wise between they're high and low end. I beleive that if they were to do this I would price it similarly to the iMac, basicly a trade-off monitor for upgrades.. put the right spin on it and I think there's a market for a machine like this.
jc1350
Apr 21, 12:45 PM
Al Franken isnt tracking me, my iphone is.
What a lame ass attempt to politicize the issue :rolleyes:
When it comes to politicians, EVERYTHING is political. They don't do or say anything without some idea on how it can help them politically.
What a lame ass attempt to politicize the issue :rolleyes:
When it comes to politicians, EVERYTHING is political. They don't do or say anything without some idea on how it can help them politically.
skunk
Mar 19, 08:16 PM
Heartwarming as the death and destruction being visited on the regime in Tripoli may be, the ongoing glee on the one hand and disinformation on the other being willingly retailed by the mass media is sickening. The truth is that we have absolutely no idea what is really going on. The information from Twitter appears to be wildly inaccurate, even misleading, and the information from reporters on the ground seems to be pure guesswork informed by propaganda. Truth, as ever, is the first casualty of war, and nobody seems to care as long as they can fabricate a good narrative.
Porchland
Jul 19, 08:54 AM
I've watched every movie I own at least 15x, and most of them many more than that. I for one won't rent from itunes, I'd rather not is all. If they make money off of it, more power to them
I think rental is probably a bigger market, but there are plenty of people like you that want to keep the movie forever. I would like to see Apple come up with a dual model that allows you to rent a movie for 48 hours that will play on all platforms or buy the movie outright.
The PPV model for $4 a pop seems to make more sense for iTunes than the Netflix model of so many movies at a time.
I think rental is probably a bigger market, but there are plenty of people like you that want to keep the movie forever. I would like to see Apple come up with a dual model that allows you to rent a movie for 48 hours that will play on all platforms or buy the movie outright.
The PPV model for $4 a pop seems to make more sense for iTunes than the Netflix model of so many movies at a time.
Mac Fly (film)
Sep 6, 07:11 PM
Quality is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more important to me, than price.
There I said it!
When I see those delicious trailers, I cry for movies like that. Please God make it happen. 720p would be unbelievable, but I would believe it.
There I said it!
When I see those delicious trailers, I cry for movies like that. Please God make it happen. 720p would be unbelievable, but I would believe it.
GregA
Nov 29, 05:21 PM
Apple has the TV Shows issue fixed, thanks to $1.99 per show on iTunes and season passes. However, live content is the big issue. I would love to ditch my cable tv subscription and go soley iTV. But I like to watch sports, especially baseball and football. Also you need TV for news events, especially breaking news.
Very interesting, I hadn't thought of it quite that way but it makes great sense. Apple can make a deal for streaming news relatively cheaply (maybe free). Sport will be a premium (think of the standard costs for subscribing to sports on cable), but ESPN (via Disney) may be quite willing to do that, and so might others.
That would pretty well replace the need for traditional PayTV - though I still think there's a gap on rental (or subscription?) of TV shows & movies that I only want to watch ONCE.
I think iTV will include 'remote desktop' functionality - if you have a BT mouse and keyboard then you will be able to operate your Mac that is in another room via iTV.
Not sure if it's needed, but would be interesting. Especially a remote desktop that can run without the user on the computer knowing that you're connected (on a separate account).
"Nor will Apple (immediately) enable the iTV to act as a digital video recorder, because that might step on TV network toes before Apple is ready to do so. "
Yeah, Apple is playing an interesting balancing game there....
?In regards to the iTV, will Apple maybe release different versions?
1. Just stream and 802.11n Hub Device
2. With HD and EyeTv.
3. Mac Mini/iTv Combo Media CenterPerhaps using a 3rd party like Elgato with EyeTV is the answer to making the iTV a DVR - without Apple angering the networks. EyeTV already is a DVR on a Mac, could it work on the iTV? If the iTV has a hard disk, I suspect it could. EyeTV can convert a recorded TV show to iPod format too... so it might do the same for iTV format and save some space. (If iTV can't handle EyeTV, I guess Elgato could write a simple application to remotely tell your Mac what to record, and show on your iTV).
I like the concept of a range of products (like the iPod).
Imagine companies like NBC, FOX, Warner, etc. have their own "channel" on iTV using front row to show their content. I think is very doable.I've thought about this one for a while, and I do think it's important. Imagine Universal putting up their Universal "iTV channel (page)" which showcases all the Universal content - including NBC TV shows, USA network & Scifi channel, downloadable movie previews and TV ads, streaming special presentations, NBC News Video Podcasts, iTunes purchases, etc
I'd like to take the "virtual channel" a step further though. Could a scifi club setup a "scifi page" with links to shows from any channel - podcasts, previews, and links for watching broadcast (or download or record/DVR?), etc? Would I even care what channel a show was on if I knew that my city's scifi club had a great "virtual channel" that found everything I could access?
Same goes for any genre of course... if I'm a horse buff, I can get all the horse shows I want. If my local sports team has a iTV page ("virtual channel") then I don't care what channel their game is broadcast on - I just want to watch it (and download other interesting stuff). Etc
Very interesting, I hadn't thought of it quite that way but it makes great sense. Apple can make a deal for streaming news relatively cheaply (maybe free). Sport will be a premium (think of the standard costs for subscribing to sports on cable), but ESPN (via Disney) may be quite willing to do that, and so might others.
That would pretty well replace the need for traditional PayTV - though I still think there's a gap on rental (or subscription?) of TV shows & movies that I only want to watch ONCE.
I think iTV will include 'remote desktop' functionality - if you have a BT mouse and keyboard then you will be able to operate your Mac that is in another room via iTV.
Not sure if it's needed, but would be interesting. Especially a remote desktop that can run without the user on the computer knowing that you're connected (on a separate account).
"Nor will Apple (immediately) enable the iTV to act as a digital video recorder, because that might step on TV network toes before Apple is ready to do so. "
Yeah, Apple is playing an interesting balancing game there....
?In regards to the iTV, will Apple maybe release different versions?
1. Just stream and 802.11n Hub Device
2. With HD and EyeTv.
3. Mac Mini/iTv Combo Media CenterPerhaps using a 3rd party like Elgato with EyeTV is the answer to making the iTV a DVR - without Apple angering the networks. EyeTV already is a DVR on a Mac, could it work on the iTV? If the iTV has a hard disk, I suspect it could. EyeTV can convert a recorded TV show to iPod format too... so it might do the same for iTV format and save some space. (If iTV can't handle EyeTV, I guess Elgato could write a simple application to remotely tell your Mac what to record, and show on your iTV).
I like the concept of a range of products (like the iPod).
Imagine companies like NBC, FOX, Warner, etc. have their own "channel" on iTV using front row to show their content. I think is very doable.I've thought about this one for a while, and I do think it's important. Imagine Universal putting up their Universal "iTV channel (page)" which showcases all the Universal content - including NBC TV shows, USA network & Scifi channel, downloadable movie previews and TV ads, streaming special presentations, NBC News Video Podcasts, iTunes purchases, etc
I'd like to take the "virtual channel" a step further though. Could a scifi club setup a "scifi page" with links to shows from any channel - podcasts, previews, and links for watching broadcast (or download or record/DVR?), etc? Would I even care what channel a show was on if I knew that my city's scifi club had a great "virtual channel" that found everything I could access?
Same goes for any genre of course... if I'm a horse buff, I can get all the horse shows I want. If my local sports team has a iTV page ("virtual channel") then I don't care what channel their game is broadcast on - I just want to watch it (and download other interesting stuff). Etc
hogo
Sep 15, 06:16 AM
and who cares...
speakerwizard
Nov 15, 08:11 AM
well, OSX whooped xp for multicore usage then
Ravich
Mar 20, 04:31 PM
Enough with the false comparisons. Homeopathy doesnt actively harm people that buy into it. "ex-gay" therapy is harmful.
Do you think that anyone would stand for a KKK app under the reasoning of "free speech"?
Do you think that anyone would stand for a KKK app under the reasoning of "free speech"?
RawBert
Apr 2, 07:29 PM
Very classy with the black theme and piano music. Loved it.
Decker
Mar 22, 05:14 PM
Apple is totally a lone player in this market of HDD-based high capacity MP3 player. The only thing prohibiting me from nabbing one of these is the highly scratchable chrome back. If Apple goes with full unibody aluminum enclosure, I'll nab one for sure.
It would be interesting how long would Apple keep this before updating it. The iPod classic already missed one cycle of update. Maybe Apple is waiting for SSD to drop in price? An SSD based Classic would be awesome (in addition to the unibody aluminum casing).
Just put it in a YoTank case like I did. You can drive your car over it without damaging the iPod.
http://www.substrata.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/CJE3140.jpg
More pics here (http://www.substrata.ca/blog/uncategorized/portable-music-rig/).
It would be interesting how long would Apple keep this before updating it. The iPod classic already missed one cycle of update. Maybe Apple is waiting for SSD to drop in price? An SSD based Classic would be awesome (in addition to the unibody aluminum casing).
Just put it in a YoTank case like I did. You can drive your car over it without damaging the iPod.
http://www.substrata.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/CJE3140.jpg
More pics here (http://www.substrata.ca/blog/uncategorized/portable-music-rig/).
poppe
Jul 14, 12:08 PM
From Wiki:
Holographic disks: standards with 200 and 300 GB storage are under development and prototypes expected in 2008
I've heard about Mac users waiting, but 5 years for most likely the first consumer device if lucky, 6 for probably first computer device. 2012.... yes exactly when I wanted to buy my next laptop after the next four I plan to purchase.
As I said they aren't attacking the Consumer market because they have no Backing. Who can beat Sony when Sony pay's best buy to Disply the blue rays and HD-DVD no longer is displayed?
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8370
This link says 2006
http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/18/inphase-announces-300gb-holographic-discs/
This says 2006 for 300 GBS/ 2009 for 1TB
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/24/maxell_holo_storage/
"Late 2006"
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/80850/holographic-discs-set-for-retail-next-year.html
2006...
http://www.techtree.com/techtree/jsp/article.jsp?article_id=69424&cat_id=581
2006...
http://www.layersmagazine.com/beta/article/holographic-discs-set-for-retail-next-year.html
2006...
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Optware-Announces-200GB-Holographic-Discs-for-2006-10859.shtml
2006 - for 200 gbs
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1785630,00.asp
2006...
http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/storage/story/0,10801,95446,00.html
2006... though this was written (2004) so...
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1311642.cms
2006...
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1821012,00.asp
2006..
From Wikipedia (your source) - "160 times the capacity of single-layer Blu-ray Discs, and about 8 times the capacity of standard computer hard drives with space that accounts for year 2006 standards. Optware is expected to release a 200 GB disc in early June of and Maxell in September 2006 with a capacity of 300 GB and transfer rate of 20 MB/sec [3] [4].
.jpg "cute friendship quotes sayings. cute friendship quotes; cute friendship quotes. cocacolakid. Apr 28, 04:22 PM. The retail discs will work in all")
cute friendship quotes sayings. cute friendship quotes; cute friendship quotes. cocacolakid. Apr 28, 04:22 PM. The retail discs will work in all
cute quotes on life and love.
cute quotes on life and love.
love and friendship sayings.
Cute Quotes Love Quotes
Holographic disks: standards with 200 and 300 GB storage are under development and prototypes expected in 2008
I've heard about Mac users waiting, but 5 years for most likely the first consumer device if lucky, 6 for probably first computer device. 2012.... yes exactly when I wanted to buy my next laptop after the next four I plan to purchase.
As I said they aren't attacking the Consumer market because they have no Backing. Who can beat Sony when Sony pay's best buy to Disply the blue rays and HD-DVD no longer is displayed?
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8370
This link says 2006
http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/18/inphase-announces-300gb-holographic-discs/
This says 2006 for 300 GBS/ 2009 for 1TB
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/24/maxell_holo_storage/
"Late 2006"
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/80850/holographic-discs-set-for-retail-next-year.html
2006...
http://www.techtree.com/techtree/jsp/article.jsp?article_id=69424&cat_id=581
2006...
http://www.layersmagazine.com/beta/article/holographic-discs-set-for-retail-next-year.html
2006...
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Optware-Announces-200GB-Holographic-Discs-for-2006-10859.shtml
2006 - for 200 gbs
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1785630,00.asp
2006...
http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/storage/story/0,10801,95446,00.html
2006... though this was written (2004) so...
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1311642.cms
2006...
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1821012,00.asp
2006..
From Wikipedia (your source) - "160 times the capacity of single-layer Blu-ray Discs, and about 8 times the capacity of standard computer hard drives with space that accounts for year 2006 standards. Optware is expected to release a 200 GB disc in early June of and Maxell in September 2006 with a capacity of 300 GB and transfer rate of 20 MB/sec [3] [4].
kadajawi
Sep 7, 04:31 AM
Reasoning goes like this:
Music costs a small amount to make - can be as low as $10k for an album.
Sell a bunch and make some profit.
Movies cost upwards of $50 million to make, often $100mil or more, so you got to rent them and sell them and do whatever you can to get that cash back.
And its got to go out the door at $25 if you are buying.
Thing is, if Apple want me to buy a movie for $15, I can rent it for $5 at the store.....and copy it if I want.
Yeah, I know thats against the law but a LOT of people do it, and anyway, if you d/l from Apple, where are you going to keep them all?
250 gig drive will hold about 30 movies. Thats not a lot of movies, and most people dont have 250 drives yet.....
Upwards of $50 million? Yeah, the crappy ones do. Usually though I prefer low budget movies... Donnie Darko was made for maybe 4 million for example. Mulholland Drive: 15 million. Machuca: 1.5 million. 12 Angry Men: $340.000 (ok, that's an old movie, but I doubt it would cost much more when it was made today). American Beauty: 1.5 million. 2046: 12 million. Muxm�uschenstill: 40000 � (absolutely fantastic movie). Why do the actors earn so much money when there are tons of good, unknown actors who could do the job better? Why so many special effects? And even if you use so many... Sin City was 40 million, Renaissance 14 million �, A Scanner Darkly 8.5 millions. These movies shure took quite a lot of efford... why are they so cheap? Somethings going wrong in Hollywood. Too many bad movies done for too much money made only to earn money.
Anyway, buying DVD isn't too expensive too, the Criterion Collection is unfortunately expensive as hell, and you'll have to import them here, but there are quite a few good movies for a low price. Donnie Darko e.g. sells for a low price (around 10 � for the tin box 2 disc version), Mulholland Drive 10 �, some Kubricks 10 � or less, ... the Arthaus label is very expensive unfortunately... they seem to be some sort of German Criterion, without packing in so many specials.
Apple would have to compete with these prices, and that doesn't mean same price, but lower, much lower. I mean what looks better? A nice, big DVD collection, or, well... nothing...?
Music costs a small amount to make - can be as low as $10k for an album.
Sell a bunch and make some profit.
Movies cost upwards of $50 million to make, often $100mil or more, so you got to rent them and sell them and do whatever you can to get that cash back.
And its got to go out the door at $25 if you are buying.
Thing is, if Apple want me to buy a movie for $15, I can rent it for $5 at the store.....and copy it if I want.
Yeah, I know thats against the law but a LOT of people do it, and anyway, if you d/l from Apple, where are you going to keep them all?
250 gig drive will hold about 30 movies. Thats not a lot of movies, and most people dont have 250 drives yet.....
Upwards of $50 million? Yeah, the crappy ones do. Usually though I prefer low budget movies... Donnie Darko was made for maybe 4 million for example. Mulholland Drive: 15 million. Machuca: 1.5 million. 12 Angry Men: $340.000 (ok, that's an old movie, but I doubt it would cost much more when it was made today). American Beauty: 1.5 million. 2046: 12 million. Muxm�uschenstill: 40000 � (absolutely fantastic movie). Why do the actors earn so much money when there are tons of good, unknown actors who could do the job better? Why so many special effects? And even if you use so many... Sin City was 40 million, Renaissance 14 million �, A Scanner Darkly 8.5 millions. These movies shure took quite a lot of efford... why are they so cheap? Somethings going wrong in Hollywood. Too many bad movies done for too much money made only to earn money.
Anyway, buying DVD isn't too expensive too, the Criterion Collection is unfortunately expensive as hell, and you'll have to import them here, but there are quite a few good movies for a low price. Donnie Darko e.g. sells for a low price (around 10 � for the tin box 2 disc version), Mulholland Drive 10 �, some Kubricks 10 � or less, ... the Arthaus label is very expensive unfortunately... they seem to be some sort of German Criterion, without packing in so many specials.
Apple would have to compete with these prices, and that doesn't mean same price, but lower, much lower. I mean what looks better? A nice, big DVD collection, or, well... nothing...?
know-it-all5
Jan 1, 07:07 PM
that pic, means a great macworld. it means jobs is going all out for the 30th anniversary things.
0815
May 2, 04:59 PM
MAS? The Muslim American Society? The Municipal Art Society of NY? Malaysia Airlines? Monetary Authority of Singapore?
Confused :confused::confused::confused:
Try MacAppStore (you know, the generic name with Mac in front of it)
Confused :confused::confused::confused:
Try MacAppStore (you know, the generic name with Mac in front of it)
iW00t
Jan 7, 12:45 AM
But the screen on the 17in MBP (1680x1050) by definition can't do HD (1920x1080). I don't care how well it can scale down, scaling down is not playing at true native resolution, and with most new content heading toward 1080i (and eventually 1080p), getting anything less than that now is just heading toward a dead end media wise IMO.
Why do you need HD on such a small device?
People have been watching TV on 640*480 28" TV sets for decades just fine. Likewise your Macbook Pro at 17" is doing as good as it possibly can at 17 inches, not like that extra 30 pixels vertically will make some difference.
My main concern with the Macbook Pros getting higher resolution displays is that there may be a possibility that Apple will break away from the current crop of low quality grainy displays and drop something else better in. Perhaps when Leopard is released we may even get the option to BTO in a higher resolution display.
Why do you need HD on such a small device?
People have been watching TV on 640*480 28" TV sets for decades just fine. Likewise your Macbook Pro at 17" is doing as good as it possibly can at 17 inches, not like that extra 30 pixels vertically will make some difference.
My main concern with the Macbook Pros getting higher resolution displays is that there may be a possibility that Apple will break away from the current crop of low quality grainy displays and drop something else better in. Perhaps when Leopard is released we may even get the option to BTO in a higher resolution display.
ipodG8TR
Aug 16, 12:38 PM
And why not offer clips from Sirius shows, namely Stern, as downloads from iTunes? Apple already allows explicit content (think every Hip Hop song), so there shouldn't be a problem.
Song paradies and other clips would sell like hotcakes for .99!
Stern isn't for everyone, but millions of fans would bring some serious attention and cash to Apple.
Song paradies and other clips would sell like hotcakes for .99!
Stern isn't for everyone, but millions of fans would bring some serious attention and cash to Apple.
Jonasgold
Mar 23, 05:43 AM
they won't ! iPod classic is the best selling for
On the last iPod event SJ said the best selling iPod used to be the nano and now is the Touch. I doubt it suddenly became the Classic.
Highest profit per Unit Sold, that I might believe, but only because they no longer invest in updates/upgrades.
On the last iPod event SJ said the best selling iPod used to be the nano and now is the Touch. I doubt it suddenly became the Classic.
Highest profit per Unit Sold, that I might believe, but only because they no longer invest in updates/upgrades.
Killyp
Aug 7, 05:26 AM
It says Vista 2.0, not 2...
Can we please talk about the subject of the thread, not about shagging farmyard animals?
Can we please talk about the subject of the thread, not about shagging farmyard animals?
iphone3gs16gb
Apr 2, 07:47 PM
This ad makes me want to buy one...
so magical!!!
so magical!!!
Baseline
Nov 15, 08:41 AM
seriously though, how hard is it to get a program to multi-thread? (if thats the right term; being a complete programming novice, i've no idea)
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
e28
Aug 17, 11:40 AM
I don't really see the demand behind adding wireless functionality into the iPod. I think wireless is the buzz word right now and investment managers and industry analysts don't even know what it means.
Bluetooth headphones, if they sound good, and bluetooth syncing is the only function people might use out of this. However, most people charge as they sync, so they would need to connect the iPod to the computer anyway. Bluetooth headphones would need to be charged too, and that is a nuisance.
The only thing semi-useful out of 802.11 is sending audio to airport express. But I use my laptop for that already, so does this really add any functionality? No one I know will be typing in a 256-bit WPA key into their iPod so they can play their iPod music over their friend's airport express, either. At work, I can view and sample my coworker's library on my computer - even when they leave for lunch. And if I like it, I can buy it on iTunes right there. Again, where is the usefulness of a wireless iPod?
I can see how XM radio might be useful to many, even though it doesn't appeal to me. However, I would think Apple would want an exclusive deal if they were to offer this feature.
Bluetooth headphones, if they sound good, and bluetooth syncing is the only function people might use out of this. However, most people charge as they sync, so they would need to connect the iPod to the computer anyway. Bluetooth headphones would need to be charged too, and that is a nuisance.
The only thing semi-useful out of 802.11 is sending audio to airport express. But I use my laptop for that already, so does this really add any functionality? No one I know will be typing in a 256-bit WPA key into their iPod so they can play their iPod music over their friend's airport express, either. At work, I can view and sample my coworker's library on my computer - even when they leave for lunch. And if I like it, I can buy it on iTunes right there. Again, where is the usefulness of a wireless iPod?
I can see how XM radio might be useful to many, even though it doesn't appeal to me. However, I would think Apple would want an exclusive deal if they were to offer this feature.
No comments:
Post a Comment