GekkePrutser
Apr 20, 10:16 AM
[
And the 13" MBP pulls 48W instead of it's 35W TDP. It's interesting.
I wish we had seen comparable numbers for the current MBA. Does it pull more than advertised under load? How much? If not, why not? Is turbo boost to blame?
The 35W is only the TDP of the processor. It doesn't include the harddrive, screen, chipset, battery charger, etc. So that's perfectly normal.
Also, TDP is not a perfectly accurate figure for power draw. It's the maximum a computer designer should budget for, both in terms of power supply, cooling, etc. So it means that in any case the sustained power draw of the processor alone won't exceed this.
It is, however, perfectly possible that the CPU draws much less power, even in a high-load situation. That could possibly be true for the current C2D's in the MBA, because they are a bit older and therefore intel might have got the process developed a bit more efficiently. So it could well be that the C2D's are working at powers below their TDP budget, while the Sandy Bridge ones are reaching the top of their budget.
And the 13" MBP pulls 48W instead of it's 35W TDP. It's interesting.
I wish we had seen comparable numbers for the current MBA. Does it pull more than advertised under load? How much? If not, why not? Is turbo boost to blame?
The 35W is only the TDP of the processor. It doesn't include the harddrive, screen, chipset, battery charger, etc. So that's perfectly normal.
Also, TDP is not a perfectly accurate figure for power draw. It's the maximum a computer designer should budget for, both in terms of power supply, cooling, etc. So it means that in any case the sustained power draw of the processor alone won't exceed this.
It is, however, perfectly possible that the CPU draws much less power, even in a high-load situation. That could possibly be true for the current C2D's in the MBA, because they are a bit older and therefore intel might have got the process developed a bit more efficiently. So it could well be that the C2D's are working at powers below their TDP budget, while the Sandy Bridge ones are reaching the top of their budget.
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.
steadysignal
Apr 14, 08:32 AM
It's the mythical xMac! :p
can i has one?
:)
can i has one?
:)
HLX
Mar 31, 10:42 AM
The rest of the design is not so bad but I wish Apple would get over the urge to make things look like their physical incarnations. I know there is a name for this but it escapes me at the moment.
Skeuomorphic?
It is a bit like that, though maybe not fully, it's more visual as opposed to functional (for example in address book you don't have to 'turn' a page on the screen).
Anyway it is a bit odd, and bound to be super polarising. Personally I think I'd live with it for a while as it does help it stand out from the other dozen+ windows I tend to have open.
Skeuomorphic?
It is a bit like that, though maybe not fully, it's more visual as opposed to functional (for example in address book you don't have to 'turn' a page on the screen).
Anyway it is a bit odd, and bound to be super polarising. Personally I think I'd live with it for a while as it does help it stand out from the other dozen+ windows I tend to have open.
more...
applefanDrew
Apr 23, 07:20 PM
As an Apple fan, I'm glad to hear this. I'd love for iPhone to get on all 4 networks in the U.S. Apple's profits go up and millions more people get access to a great device. I would love to see iPhone 5 in September get released on all networks in the U.S. :apple:
onthecouchagain
Apr 24, 12:30 AM
No one asks what happens to Tmobile if the merger doesn't go through. Do they just continue along their merry way with the nice 3 million bonus from ATT? What will Deushe Telekom do with them if ATT merge doesn't go through? Go to the next bidder? Or just continue being the "4th" network provider?
more...
840quadra
Dec 1, 02:48 PM
I'm pretty sure that any time you use Personal file sharing, you are using AppleTalk.
EDIT: More info... Personal File Sharing is based off of Apple Filing Protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Filing_Protocol). From wikipedia:
I was about to correct your first post (politely) by saying that you can use AFP with AppleTalk disabled.
EDIT: More info... Personal File Sharing is based off of Apple Filing Protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Filing_Protocol). From wikipedia:
I was about to correct your first post (politely) by saying that you can use AFP with AppleTalk disabled.
Reddmanz
Dec 5, 11:08 AM
Wow. Being from the UK it's pretty weird to hear of people buying guns for Christmas! I can't imagine being able to casually own one.
more...
vincenz
Apr 14, 01:13 PM
Great, another useless update :rolleyes:
gnasher729
Oct 24, 05:01 AM
I have no issues with having the software installed once, although Apple allowing certain products to be installed on a desktop AND a laptop is great. But, I do not steal software. I really like what Apple does with their 'Family Packs'. You can add ~ 25-30% to the price and install it on five machines. That is great marketing and very fair.
Since I don't have a "Family Pack": Could you have a look at the license and check whether it would allow installing on three Macs plus in a virtual machine on two of these Macs for a total of five copies?
Since I don't have a "Family Pack": Could you have a look at the license and check whether it would allow installing on three Macs plus in a virtual machine on two of these Macs for a total of five copies?
more...
Keleko
Apr 1, 05:59 PM
My wife is knitting a baby blanket. No, it isn't for us (thankfully).
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5095/5580248397_e1d38e2031_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5580248397/)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5095/5580248397_e1d38e2031_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5580248397/)
displaced
Jul 21, 01:29 PM
Marketshare matters.
Why? The biggest and the most obvious reason is that developing for and porting software to OS X becomes more attractive to developers. Greater market share also helps Apple in its dealings with major partners like Intel and Microsoft.
The other big benefit for consumers is that we may see more product offerings from Apple as the number of macs sold increases. How about that Mac media center everyone's been talking about? Or the fabled Mac tablet?
True, I was being pretty flippant with that reply.
Having said that, I was attempting to underline the point that marketshare is a percentage. Even an apparently low figure (even 5% which we're all hoping for is still a small percentage!) represents a sizeable market, considering the size of the computing industry in general.
Why? The biggest and the most obvious reason is that developing for and porting software to OS X becomes more attractive to developers. Greater market share also helps Apple in its dealings with major partners like Intel and Microsoft.
The other big benefit for consumers is that we may see more product offerings from Apple as the number of macs sold increases. How about that Mac media center everyone's been talking about? Or the fabled Mac tablet?
True, I was being pretty flippant with that reply.
Having said that, I was attempting to underline the point that marketshare is a percentage. Even an apparently low figure (even 5% which we're all hoping for is still a small percentage!) represents a sizeable market, considering the size of the computing industry in general.
more...
rayz
Aug 1, 12:20 AM
He was talking about seeing blue screens. So it doesn't matter how many people would register it as a crash....they still wouldn't see a blue screen. That was the point he was trying to make.
Yep. I got that; I was saying that the reason you don't see it is not because they've hidden it; it's because XP is actually a lot more stable. Crashes these days are pretty rare, and are usually caused by attempts to access strange areas of memory, or driver problems. I have an XP box running a couple of web containers, and a few app servers; aside from a driver hiccup, never had a crash or secret reboot (and I would know, because I would still need to log back in when I got back from the water cooler).
Also, just as a side note...it took them three years to create the version you're talking about. I'm not stating this for argument—it's only here as additional info.
... and it took Apple just as long to create a stable version of OSX; the only real difference was that MS didn't charge for the interim versions. Again, just additional info.
Yep. I got that; I was saying that the reason you don't see it is not because they've hidden it; it's because XP is actually a lot more stable. Crashes these days are pretty rare, and are usually caused by attempts to access strange areas of memory, or driver problems. I have an XP box running a couple of web containers, and a few app servers; aside from a driver hiccup, never had a crash or secret reboot (and I would know, because I would still need to log back in when I got back from the water cooler).
Also, just as a side note...it took them three years to create the version you're talking about. I'm not stating this for argument—it's only here as additional info.
... and it took Apple just as long to create a stable version of OSX; the only real difference was that MS didn't charge for the interim versions. Again, just additional info.
arogge
Jun 16, 06:12 PM
You believe that there is an unlimited ceiling on how much money someone should lose as a result of linking a credit card to their account. If there were an app that cost a million dollars, and someone misclicked and bought it, you apparently believe it's right and good that they spend the rest of their life paying it off.
No, there is a limit on how much money a person can risk as a result of a credit card transaction. The credit card must be authorized for the amount specified, or the transaction will be declined. There is a limit on the size of each transaction, and a limit on the total amount of credit available during the billing cycle. There is no way to charge a million dollars unless you have a credit line that large and you have authorized the credit card company to allow a single transaction of this amount. For most people, the transaction would simply not go through. For the rest, the IRS would probably come looking for some explanatory paperwork.
No, there is a limit on how much money a person can risk as a result of a credit card transaction. The credit card must be authorized for the amount specified, or the transaction will be declined. There is a limit on the size of each transaction, and a limit on the total amount of credit available during the billing cycle. There is no way to charge a million dollars unless you have a credit line that large and you have authorized the credit card company to allow a single transaction of this amount. For most people, the transaction would simply not go through. For the rest, the IRS would probably come looking for some explanatory paperwork.
more...
bman1209
Mar 31, 11:10 AM
Can someone confirm there isn't going to be a to-do list in Lion? This is ridiculous!
So how about a to-do list, hey Apple?
So how about a to-do list, hey Apple?
saving107
Apr 14, 01:39 PM
@#*(&$(# and I bought Xcode to get those features a few weeks ago. But they are sweet!!!! I use em all the time.
Why did you buy XCode, all you needed to have done was go to developers.apple.com and sign up for a free Dev account, once there, just download the older version of XCode (v3.2.5) and install. The older version works fine and will enable the Gestures, you only need to buy and download the newest version of XCode if your an actual Developer, then you would want to have the latest version for developing purposes.
Why did you buy XCode, all you needed to have done was go to developers.apple.com and sign up for a free Dev account, once there, just download the older version of XCode (v3.2.5) and install. The older version works fine and will enable the Gestures, you only need to buy and download the newest version of XCode if your an actual Developer, then you would want to have the latest version for developing purposes.
more...
wordoflife
Apr 29, 03:06 PM
Yay.
I am buying my music from where it is cheapest. If Apple wants me to buy from them, they know what they need to do.
I am buying my music from where it is cheapest. If Apple wants me to buy from them, they know what they need to do.
DWKlink
Oct 24, 07:41 AM
against other manufacturer's offerings both spec and pricewise?
Chaszmyr
Jul 25, 08:07 AM
Seemingly the US Store is the only one to feature the Wireless Mighty Mouse so far, my Credit Card is quivering in fear of the UK Store being updated :p
It's possible that the device has not yet been approved in other countries, and Apple rushed the release because it leaked yesterday.
It's possible that the device has not yet been approved in other countries, and Apple rushed the release because it leaked yesterday.
Parkin Pig
Apr 9, 08:22 AM
From the decommissioned power station at Thorpe Marsh, UK.
It reminded me of the door Jim Carrey used to exit his 'world' in 'The Truman Show'.
It reminded me of the door Jim Carrey used to exit his 'world' in 'The Truman Show'.
DTphonehome
Apr 13, 08:39 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
No brown?????
Brown is the new white is the new black. As evidenced by the raging success of the brown zune.
No brown?????
Brown is the new white is the new black. As evidenced by the raging success of the brown zune.
archurban
Jul 11, 03:21 PM
it will be a good competition after all. it's MS. not just small mp3 player makers. but I doubt that new product will take a piece of ipod so called 'ipod killer'? it's not how ipod killer looks but how it can integerate both hardware and software like itunes so well. whatever MS do, they have gizliions of money to put anyway.
on the other hand, Apple already knows MS plan. Apple will release new 6G ipod before MS will do or at the same time. plus movie download service could be launched becasue MS makes Apple to hurry for going more further way. it will be interesting to watch the competition. :)
on the other hand, Apple already knows MS plan. Apple will release new 6G ipod before MS will do or at the same time. plus movie download service could be launched becasue MS makes Apple to hurry for going more further way. it will be interesting to watch the competition. :)
keltorsori
Nov 2, 11:38 PM
Please keep us up-to-date. I've been waiting for VMware now for months.
bushido
Apr 22, 05:11 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
nah there r better looking HTC out there by now, the new one they got (forgot its name) with the slide out keyboard is pure sex ^^
If it has a slide-out keyboard it's already fail.
how about no? i can finally type blind again and under the desk where im not supposed to type and if i dont need it i just slide it in and use the touch winwin. but each their own
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
nah there r better looking HTC out there by now, the new one they got (forgot its name) with the slide out keyboard is pure sex ^^
If it has a slide-out keyboard it's already fail.
how about no? i can finally type blind again and under the desk where im not supposed to type and if i dont need it i just slide it in and use the touch winwin. but each their own
No comments:
Post a Comment