MacAddict1978
Mar 26, 02:41 PM
Ridiculous. Mac OS X and iOS can never merge because their UI paradigms are completely different. Why don't people understand this?
And on what computers would iOS apps be developed on of Apple were to can the Mac? iOS may be much more popular, but the Mac is more popular now than it ever has been and still makes then plenty of money.
You're too lost in a programing manual to see the point people are making. Blending is taking 2 things and mixing them together, or parts of things. Merging would be taking 2 things to make 1 new thing. Don't be so literal.
A more unified experience is definitley in Apple's plans for the future of both OS-es. Not my opinion. They've said so. That does not say, however, having one OS to rule them all. Lion takes a lot of cues from IOS (have you looked at it? Watched the Back To The Mac keynote and listened to Steve Jobs talk about this strategy?) The Mac OS will get more IOS like over time. And that might not be a bad thing. Jobs claims they don't want a touch screen Macintosh, yet they've patented the hell out of them and have bought components and things (obviously they've got something in the labs). When that day does come, and it most likely will be sooner than later... a blending of the two OS-es makes a lot of sense. The way people want to interact with technology is changing. Your operating system has to change too. To something more exciting that what we've had since the 1980's. Apple holds a patent on a sensor that works something like the Kinect does. This is where things are going. In a few years you'll swipe i the air without the need to a track pad. A mix of touch, sight, and gestures and perhaps voice. All this tech is here and has been for awhile. Time for the software to hit puberty, and this is the right track to go.
Personally, I'm bored with IOS and Mac OSX on an aesthetic level. I don't want the ugly IOS folders for my Apps anywhere, but I don't want the same old finder either.
And on what computers would iOS apps be developed on of Apple were to can the Mac? iOS may be much more popular, but the Mac is more popular now than it ever has been and still makes then plenty of money.
You're too lost in a programing manual to see the point people are making. Blending is taking 2 things and mixing them together, or parts of things. Merging would be taking 2 things to make 1 new thing. Don't be so literal.
A more unified experience is definitley in Apple's plans for the future of both OS-es. Not my opinion. They've said so. That does not say, however, having one OS to rule them all. Lion takes a lot of cues from IOS (have you looked at it? Watched the Back To The Mac keynote and listened to Steve Jobs talk about this strategy?) The Mac OS will get more IOS like over time. And that might not be a bad thing. Jobs claims they don't want a touch screen Macintosh, yet they've patented the hell out of them and have bought components and things (obviously they've got something in the labs). When that day does come, and it most likely will be sooner than later... a blending of the two OS-es makes a lot of sense. The way people want to interact with technology is changing. Your operating system has to change too. To something more exciting that what we've had since the 1980's. Apple holds a patent on a sensor that works something like the Kinect does. This is where things are going. In a few years you'll swipe i the air without the need to a track pad. A mix of touch, sight, and gestures and perhaps voice. All this tech is here and has been for awhile. Time for the software to hit puberty, and this is the right track to go.
Personally, I'm bored with IOS and Mac OSX on an aesthetic level. I don't want the ugly IOS folders for my Apps anywhere, but I don't want the same old finder either.
NATO
Nov 28, 06:18 PM
I think they'll be a long way off getting money from every iPod sold. For a start its such an illogical thing to ask for (Did the music companies ask for money for every CD player or Tape Recorder sold? Nope), plus I suspect the main reason that Microsoft agreed to pay money in the first place is that they needed to get the music labels on board to boost the Zune Music Store, Microsoft was in the weaker position here and I believe the labels exploited that weakness.
If the labels were to go to Apple and demand a royalty on every iPod and threatening to pull their catalogue if they didn't get it, they would actually come off worse than Apple in terms of lost revenue and it's because of this I reckon they haven't a chance...
If the labels were to go to Apple and demand a royalty on every iPod and threatening to pull their catalogue if they didn't get it, they would actually come off worse than Apple in terms of lost revenue and it's because of this I reckon they haven't a chance...
balamw
Apr 6, 04:32 PM
Because as we all know Costco is the leading reseller and indicator for technology products.
I've found it to be a pretty good indicator of products that aren't selling well elsewhere especially when they show up in pallets at prices lower than most other places.
This happened with the last PPC Mac Mini's and AppleTV 1.
B
I've found it to be a pretty good indicator of products that aren't selling well elsewhere especially when they show up in pallets at prices lower than most other places.
This happened with the last PPC Mac Mini's and AppleTV 1.
B
twoodcc
Aug 14, 05:54 PM
well to my understanding, there should be a lot of change between GT5 prologue and the full release. we won't know til it comes out, but i sure hope that it is much better.
i personally like all the cars and graphics. i like how it keeps up with how many miles you have on each car, and that you need to change the oil and everything. but maybe that's just me. its cheaper for me to play the game instead of actually buying a nice sports car.
i personally like all the cars and graphics. i like how it keeps up with how many miles you have on each car, and that you need to change the oil and everything. but maybe that's just me. its cheaper for me to play the game instead of actually buying a nice sports car.
Denarius
Mar 22, 07:36 PM
Don't tell me a flagship armed with 100 Tomahawk missiles and full targeting information just happened to be passing.
I think if military action of this scale is even a possibility, whether you've made a decision, it's pretty normal to put the necessary pieces on standby. I believe keeping strategic targeting information regularly up to date is pretty normal military practise even when you're not at war.
I think if military action of this scale is even a possibility, whether you've made a decision, it's pretty normal to put the necessary pieces on standby. I believe keeping strategic targeting information regularly up to date is pretty normal military practise even when you're not at war.
Mattie Num Nums
Mar 31, 02:23 PM
This is a smart move. It had to happen sooner or later.
John Gruber's take:
Can't say I disagree.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
John Gruber's take:
Can't say I disagree.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
littleman23408
Dec 9, 11:14 AM
Menus are what I expected from a Japanese game, horrible.
It's not a bad game but it could have been a lot better
+1, If I could change 1 thing about the game, it would be the menu's.
It's not a bad game but it could have been a lot better
+1, If I could change 1 thing about the game, it would be the menu's.
asiayeah
Aug 26, 11:44 AM
Im sorry, but when you recall 1.8million batteries, and expect them not to get over laoded with call, your crazy. Dell is making some people wait nearly 70 days to get their replacement. Its a LOT of batteries. Affecting a LOT of users. These things happen.
Because Apple customers care about Apple and they want the best and reasonable services from it. Unfortunately, this is not the current case.
I am sure most people agree that Apple's current way of handling the battery replacements leaves lots of rooms for improvements, particularly in non-US areas.
We also shouldn't feel good just because Dell also does not handle it too well. After all, Dell has more batteries to replace and has a shorter period of time for preparations. Supposingly, Dell provides bargain PCs, while Apple tends to charge a premium for their products. Can't Apple customers deserve better services? Shouldn't Apple be better? Should we all lower our expectations from Apple and ask for a cheaper price instead?
Because Apple customers care about Apple and they want the best and reasonable services from it. Unfortunately, this is not the current case.
I am sure most people agree that Apple's current way of handling the battery replacements leaves lots of rooms for improvements, particularly in non-US areas.
We also shouldn't feel good just because Dell also does not handle it too well. After all, Dell has more batteries to replace and has a shorter period of time for preparations. Supposingly, Dell provides bargain PCs, while Apple tends to charge a premium for their products. Can't Apple customers deserve better services? Shouldn't Apple be better? Should we all lower our expectations from Apple and ask for a cheaper price instead?
ugp
Jun 22, 11:50 AM
My district here received their phones today...
Out of 68 PINs generated, only 11 phones were sent. Only to 4 stores and one of the stores that received the most phones did not even generate P any PINs. System was screwed up like I thought it would be with Radio Shack.
Out of the 11 phones 10 are 16GB and 1 32GB. The store that generated the most PINs did not receive any phones at all.
Anyone shocked... I know I am not being I worked for Radio Shack for 7 years.
Out of 68 PINs generated, only 11 phones were sent. Only to 4 stores and one of the stores that received the most phones did not even generate P any PINs. System was screwed up like I thought it would be with Radio Shack.
Out of the 11 phones 10 are 16GB and 1 32GB. The store that generated the most PINs did not receive any phones at all.
Anyone shocked... I know I am not being I worked for Radio Shack for 7 years.
noservice2001
Aug 5, 04:15 PM
cmon, ipod.....
Lone Deranger
Mar 26, 08:26 AM
...at least Microsoft, and I hate it, does a complete overhaul of everything; sometimes it fails, and sometimes it succeeds)
Not quite, W7 is still based on Win NT technology, dating back to 1993.
Not quite, W7 is still based on Win NT technology, dating back to 1993.
morespce54
Aug 11, 12:11 PM
We always have "next tuesday"
LOL
Yeah, Safari already feel snappier�... Sorry, wrong tread! ;)
LOL
Yeah, Safari already feel snappier�... Sorry, wrong tread! ;)
H. Flower
Apr 11, 08:56 PM
How about using more than one bloody core to render a timeline or do an export to the eternally-broken Compressor?
How about properly recognizing file attributes on import?
�stability?
�QMaster having better than coin-flip reliability?
�better R3D support (as well as other cameras)?
�GPGPU/OpenCL?
etc etc
- native video support (years behind in this)
- viewing upsized or downsized video without degradation
- proper render management
- removal of "insufficient content" and "cannot split a transition" errors
and on and on and on
The major thing, though, is they HAVE to start utilizing multiple cores. It's not and as video gets larger, rendering gets more taxing.
How about properly recognizing file attributes on import?
�stability?
�QMaster having better than coin-flip reliability?
�better R3D support (as well as other cameras)?
�GPGPU/OpenCL?
etc etc
- native video support (years behind in this)
- viewing upsized or downsized video without degradation
- proper render management
- removal of "insufficient content" and "cannot split a transition" errors
and on and on and on
The major thing, though, is they HAVE to start utilizing multiple cores. It's not and as video gets larger, rendering gets more taxing.
bugfaceuk
Apr 10, 07:08 AM
anything less than the following will be a huge disappointment:
- touch-based editing release together with a huge "iPad"/editing board (probably connected to the main computer with Thunderbolt)
- professional features intact and developed
- integrates nicely with DI systems such as DaVinci
best,
jon m.
Faster horses.
- touch-based editing release together with a huge "iPad"/editing board (probably connected to the main computer with Thunderbolt)
- professional features intact and developed
- integrates nicely with DI systems such as DaVinci
best,
jon m.
Faster horses.
mactoday
Apr 6, 10:56 AM
What is the obsession with back-lit keys?
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
It's ****ing great option while working at night in bed.
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
It's ****ing great option while working at night in bed.
littleman23408
Dec 1, 05:27 PM
Sorry, Bandit, I don't have tips for the licenses. I am not that far into them yet.
Took out the Lotus challenge in a snap. The first few times I came close to finishing it, I would have had 1st and beat it, but I either ran into the grass, or the person in first I was about to pass slowed down to much and I nailed him. But, the first time I actually completed the two laps, I was 1st. If someone needs tips I will post it.
Took out the Lotus challenge in a snap. The first few times I came close to finishing it, I would have had 1st and beat it, but I either ran into the grass, or the person in first I was about to pass slowed down to much and I nailed him. But, the first time I actually completed the two laps, I was 1st. If someone needs tips I will post it.
unlinked
Apr 6, 04:51 PM
BTW... the Xoom at the Best Buy here is broken... been that way for two weeks now according to the sales guy.
If the sales are so bad why don't they just replace it from the stock they have?
If the sales are so bad why don't they just replace it from the stock they have?
jhedges3
Aug 11, 02:57 PM
See now that is something I never understood, how the cell service can be so poor in a place like NYC, yet I was making calls on my CDMA phone in the middle of Wyoming this summer. In fact, there are few places in very unpopulated midwest and west that you can't get a decent signal at least with a CDMA phone. People that come here with GSM are out of luck anywhere except metro areas.
New York has more of something than Wyoming, which is buildings. These buildings make it more difficult for signal to get to people, I think. For whatever reasons CDMA seems to work much better here than GSM.
New York has more of something than Wyoming, which is buildings. These buildings make it more difficult for signal to get to people, I think. For whatever reasons CDMA seems to work much better here than GSM.
SevenInchScrew
Dec 9, 01:09 AM
DoFoT:
It depends on what you want from a game. If you care more about driving and tuning than painting and whatnot go buy GT5. Its all about driving and not much else.
I love it because i'm a bit of a car nerd. If you like cars you will like GT5. If you love cars you will love GT5, its just that simple.
I guess I'll throw in my counterpoint to that then, just to give him another opinion to mull over, because I love cars and don't love GT5....
The game is not real good. Every time I've played it, I can't help but think of how it could have been SOOO much better, if they just trimmed back on the crazy feature list a bit. The game tries to be everything to everyone who likes cars. But the problem with that is, trying to do many things means you'll never excel at any of them. Often the implementation of things in this game is a little weak or unfulfilling because of that. For example...
NASCAR is in, but is pretty plain and boring, and doesn't feel like a real cup race. If you like NASCAR, you'd be better served with a full game based on that.
Same with WRC stuff. Yes, the rally is pretty decent. But, I've played a bunch of REALLY awesome rally games before, and this is nowhere near as good.
Day and Night cycles, and Weather effects look amazing.... on the very few tracks that you can actually have them function on.
The sounds of the cars, just as with every GT game that has come before it, is terrible. Very few cars actually sound like their real-world version, and when you tune them up, they get even less distinctive.
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
And lastly, the menus are just pitiful. It really feels like they designed them first, all those years ago, and then never touched them again. So many games have come and gone with great menu systems, and this game took nothing away from them, because they are just awful in this game.
This game really had the potential to be amazing. If they got rid of NASCAR, WRC, Karts, etc, and took out about 4-500 of the boring, crappy cars, we'd be getting somewhere. Use the time and effort that those removed things would have occupied to make some manageable menus, more Premium cars, and get the Day-Night cycle and Weather on all tracks. That would have been great. But that isn't what we got.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good game. But GT games aren't supposed to just be good, they are supposed to be GREAT. But even after a 6 year wait, we only got pretty good.
But hey, as I've said on many occasions, it does make some DAMN GOOD screenshots. Almost unreal at times...
Click to HUGE-size
http://imgur.com/hLJ12.jpg
http://imgur.com/V06hb.jpg
http://imgur.com/Vciun.jpg
http://imgur.com/ZGPiF.jpg
http://imgur.com/IMrhk.jpg
It depends on what you want from a game. If you care more about driving and tuning than painting and whatnot go buy GT5. Its all about driving and not much else.
I love it because i'm a bit of a car nerd. If you like cars you will like GT5. If you love cars you will love GT5, its just that simple.
I guess I'll throw in my counterpoint to that then, just to give him another opinion to mull over, because I love cars and don't love GT5....
The game is not real good. Every time I've played it, I can't help but think of how it could have been SOOO much better, if they just trimmed back on the crazy feature list a bit. The game tries to be everything to everyone who likes cars. But the problem with that is, trying to do many things means you'll never excel at any of them. Often the implementation of things in this game is a little weak or unfulfilling because of that. For example...
NASCAR is in, but is pretty plain and boring, and doesn't feel like a real cup race. If you like NASCAR, you'd be better served with a full game based on that.
Same with WRC stuff. Yes, the rally is pretty decent. But, I've played a bunch of REALLY awesome rally games before, and this is nowhere near as good.
Day and Night cycles, and Weather effects look amazing.... on the very few tracks that you can actually have them function on.
The sounds of the cars, just as with every GT game that has come before it, is terrible. Very few cars actually sound like their real-world version, and when you tune them up, they get even less distinctive.
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
And lastly, the menus are just pitiful. It really feels like they designed them first, all those years ago, and then never touched them again. So many games have come and gone with great menu systems, and this game took nothing away from them, because they are just awful in this game.
This game really had the potential to be amazing. If they got rid of NASCAR, WRC, Karts, etc, and took out about 4-500 of the boring, crappy cars, we'd be getting somewhere. Use the time and effort that those removed things would have occupied to make some manageable menus, more Premium cars, and get the Day-Night cycle and Weather on all tracks. That would have been great. But that isn't what we got.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good game. But GT games aren't supposed to just be good, they are supposed to be GREAT. But even after a 6 year wait, we only got pretty good.
But hey, as I've said on many occasions, it does make some DAMN GOOD screenshots. Almost unreal at times...
Click to HUGE-size
http://imgur.com/hLJ12.jpg
http://imgur.com/V06hb.jpg
http://imgur.com/Vciun.jpg
http://imgur.com/ZGPiF.jpg
http://imgur.com/IMrhk.jpg
NebulaClash
Apr 27, 08:11 AM
5. Can Apple locate me based on my geo-tagged Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data?
No. This data is sent to Apple in an anonymous and encrypted form. Apple cannot identify the source of this data.
So while it is true that the iPhone does note Wi-Fi locations in your general area, and thus it does "track" you in that sense, it is only on your Mac that this information can actually track you. The information sent to Apple is anonymized, and thus not trackable to you.
Apple is NOT tracking you. Your phone creates a database that could track you IF SOMEONE HAS ACCESS TO YOUR MAC. But if that happens, they already know everything there is to know about you anyway and have no need to check your Wi-Fi database. They've got your Address Book info, your bank site links and cookies, your email, your personal letters, etc.
The only reason to slam Apple is for not culling this local database. Now they will. But Apple was NEVER tracking you. Apple is not lying when they say that.
No. This data is sent to Apple in an anonymous and encrypted form. Apple cannot identify the source of this data.
So while it is true that the iPhone does note Wi-Fi locations in your general area, and thus it does "track" you in that sense, it is only on your Mac that this information can actually track you. The information sent to Apple is anonymized, and thus not trackable to you.
Apple is NOT tracking you. Your phone creates a database that could track you IF SOMEONE HAS ACCESS TO YOUR MAC. But if that happens, they already know everything there is to know about you anyway and have no need to check your Wi-Fi database. They've got your Address Book info, your bank site links and cookies, your email, your personal letters, etc.
The only reason to slam Apple is for not culling this local database. Now they will. But Apple was NEVER tracking you. Apple is not lying when they say that.
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
DStaal
Sep 13, 09:12 AM
A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.
Mac OS X distributes threads and processes across cores/CPUs to optimize performance already. (Subject to some limitations, as noted already.)
Many Mac programs which can benifit from mutiple threads already use this, and will automatically get boosts from 8 cores depending on the amount of cocurrency they support.
On the other hand, not everything is suitable for cocurrent execution. Photoshop editing an image would love to have a core per pixel. BBEdit couldn't care less, most likely. It all depends on what you are doing.
Plenty of Mac software would use the extra cores, if they were avalible.
(Note: I keep specifying 'Mac' here. There is a reason. Windows isn't as good at multithreading/processing yet...)
Mac OS X distributes threads and processes across cores/CPUs to optimize performance already. (Subject to some limitations, as noted already.)
Many Mac programs which can benifit from mutiple threads already use this, and will automatically get boosts from 8 cores depending on the amount of cocurrency they support.
On the other hand, not everything is suitable for cocurrent execution. Photoshop editing an image would love to have a core per pixel. BBEdit couldn't care less, most likely. It all depends on what you are doing.
Plenty of Mac software would use the extra cores, if they were avalible.
(Note: I keep specifying 'Mac' here. There is a reason. Windows isn't as good at multithreading/processing yet...)
littleman23408
Dec 4, 06:45 PM
I've been doing B-spec the whole time. Just set a race up and then go do other stuff. Come back it's done; repeat. :p
I have only done one. But I didn't feel as if I could start the race, leave, come back and have won. The race I did, I watched. My guy was in 1st the up until the last lap, and the person in 2nd over took him. I am sure if I was not there to instruct him to "over take" he would not have done it and I would have gotten 2nd.
Maybe I just need to level up?
I have only done one. But I didn't feel as if I could start the race, leave, come back and have won. The race I did, I watched. My guy was in 1st the up until the last lap, and the person in 2nd over took him. I am sure if I was not there to instruct him to "over take" he would not have done it and I would have gotten 2nd.
Maybe I just need to level up?
twoodcc
Aug 27, 10:43 PM
i am looking forward to this game, no matter if it's got standard and premium cars.
No comments:
Post a Comment