MrCrowbar
Aug 19, 06:08 PM
!!!! DON'T DO THE SMC FIRMWARE UPDATE !!!!
Sorry to post it here, but I think it's urgent.
This update "fixes" tha Macbook fans. After the update, they (the fans) basically run at full speed all the time. They only stop once your CPU is below 50°C.
Sorry to post it here, but I think it's urgent.
This update "fixes" tha Macbook fans. After the update, they (the fans) basically run at full speed all the time. They only stop once your CPU is below 50°C.
shamino
Jul 21, 10:07 AM
With all these new technologies with 4, 8 and eventually 24-core capacities (some time in the not too distant future) all running at 64-bit, we musn't forget that software also has tobe developed for these machienes in order to get the most out of the hardware. At the moment we aren't even maximising core-duo, let alone a quad core and all the rest!!!!
It really depends on your application.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use.
If you get away from the desktop and look to the server market, however, the picture changes. A web server may only be running one copy of Apache, but it may create a thread for every simultaneous connection. If you have 8 cores, then you can handle 8 times as many connections as a 1-core system can (assuming sufficient memory and I/O bandwidth, of course.) Ditto for database, transaction, and all kinds of other servers. More cores means more simultaneous connections without performance degradation.
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.
It really depends on your application.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use.
If you get away from the desktop and look to the server market, however, the picture changes. A web server may only be running one copy of Apache, but it may create a thread for every simultaneous connection. If you have 8 cores, then you can handle 8 times as many connections as a 1-core system can (assuming sufficient memory and I/O bandwidth, of course.) Ditto for database, transaction, and all kinds of other servers. More cores means more simultaneous connections without performance degradation.
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.
Consultant
Apr 19, 02:06 PM
What annoys me even more is that Apple always seems to make these claims that they made such and such first, and that Windows is copying Mac OS.. What annoys me is if you know a bit of the history you'll find that Apple copied Xerox interface, with permission of course, but it's not like they came up with it first..
Now they are making another claim that Samsung is copying..
WRONG. A lot of modern GUI elements are INVENTED by Apple:
http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/
Now they are making another claim that Samsung is copying..
WRONG. A lot of modern GUI elements are INVENTED by Apple:
http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/
pherplexed
Jul 27, 10:11 AM
wasn't this announced last friday? (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060721145043.shtml)
gorgeousninja
Apr 19, 04:36 PM
How can this be that 'Apple have a pretty strong case' when so many posters have said that whatever Apple does is generic, and that they have never designed or innovated anything?...
Oh! Ding!!
Must be cos they are all talking cr*p....
Oh! Ding!!
Must be cos they are all talking cr*p....
ferguldy
Jul 27, 09:49 AM
So are we really going to get ALL of these new toys come WWDC? Leopard preview, Merom laptops, Core2/Woodcrest Mac Pros, Core2 Imacs (oh, and maybe a movie download add to iTunes) That sounds like an awful lot of stuff to cover in such a short period of time. What do people think about timelines for introduction here?
Mikey7c8
Mar 31, 08:49 PM
When they go shopping and see a brand new Android phone running a better OS with more apps than they had before, they will simply buy it. Especially since there will continue to be two for one offers and lots of competition
Seriously, what a crock of ****.
Seriously, what a crock of ****.
miketcool
Nov 28, 08:36 PM
Something is fishy, very very fishy.
Anyone remember the MS Zune being compared to a 4G iPod on the Today show? Matt Lauer said NBC and MS were business partners as a kind of disclaimer and Roker praised the iPod.
Watch Conan O'Brien. Chuck Norris lever is the giveaway here! NBC owns Universal, right? NBC-UNIVERSAL
So Microsoft says, hey, well pay you "wink wink" and then Universal pulls the rus out from Apple because Microsoft thinks it is in a position to topple Apple by denying them content. There is much more at stake here and someone is realizing Apple's angle.
Anyone remember the MS Zune being compared to a 4G iPod on the Today show? Matt Lauer said NBC and MS were business partners as a kind of disclaimer and Roker praised the iPod.
Watch Conan O'Brien. Chuck Norris lever is the giveaway here! NBC owns Universal, right? NBC-UNIVERSAL
So Microsoft says, hey, well pay you "wink wink" and then Universal pulls the rus out from Apple because Microsoft thinks it is in a position to topple Apple by denying them content. There is much more at stake here and someone is realizing Apple's angle.
Mattsasa
Apr 6, 03:01 PM
I hope that number keeps rising; we need competition to not let Apple rest on it's laurels.
apple isn't resting on their laurels,
if that number rises... which it will, it just means less developers and apps for ios
apple isn't resting on their laurels,
if that number rises... which it will, it just means less developers and apps for ios
THX1139
Aug 20, 03:45 AM
Anyway I'm glad you guys aren't too angry with me cause this time forward is really going to be a power explosion on all personal computers and we all know here that OS X is the only way to fly with the new hardware. Once we get Leopard on board and the remainder of all the pro aplications go UB and MultiCore Optimized, 2007 forward are going to be amazing times for creativity with little to no waiting for any processes to get done. :) Whoopie!
Yeah, now all we have to do is be able to afford it. Wonder what the price point on tigerton or clovertown is going to be. Probably way more coin than I have! How is it going to be possible for Apple or any other vendor to utilize those mega multi-core processers and keep the systems affordable for the common man? They are going to need a middle ground machine more than ever! Not every professional is going to need more than 4 cores let alone be willing to pay for it. I think the more processors, the more specialized the computer is going to become.
Yeah, now all we have to do is be able to afford it. Wonder what the price point on tigerton or clovertown is going to be. Probably way more coin than I have! How is it going to be possible for Apple or any other vendor to utilize those mega multi-core processers and keep the systems affordable for the common man? They are going to need a middle ground machine more than ever! Not every professional is going to need more than 4 cores let alone be willing to pay for it. I think the more processors, the more specialized the computer is going to become.
hulugu
Mar 18, 10:57 PM
What pacifist ever has a realistic chance of becoming the next "commander-in-chief"?
That's why 5P's contention is so ridiculous.
Candidates must paint themselves as "strong" and capable of leading our military, otherwise there'd be little chance they'd be elected as president.
Foreign adventurism is as American as apple pie, but post-World War II it's become a structural constant that no single president is going to change. Paul talks, but when it came down to actually withdrawing US troops from foreign bases, I seriously doubt that it would go as smoothly as fivepoint and Paul suggest.
It's a worthwhile consideration of Obama that he seems more hawk than dove these days, but I don't see another viable candidate from 2008 that would have done any better because these are difficult and complex problems.
That's why 5P's contention is so ridiculous.
Candidates must paint themselves as "strong" and capable of leading our military, otherwise there'd be little chance they'd be elected as president.
Foreign adventurism is as American as apple pie, but post-World War II it's become a structural constant that no single president is going to change. Paul talks, but when it came down to actually withdrawing US troops from foreign bases, I seriously doubt that it would go as smoothly as fivepoint and Paul suggest.
It's a worthwhile consideration of Obama that he seems more hawk than dove these days, but I don't see another viable candidate from 2008 that would have done any better because these are difficult and complex problems.
gwangung
Apr 25, 03:07 PM
Location services is not the same as storing every place you've ever been.
Why does the db never get cleared?
If location info is required for an app, why would I want to use info from possibly over a year ago that may no longer be accurate?
I won't put on a tinfoil hat just yet. For now I'll just chalk this issue up to sloppy programming. ;)
Apple still fails to answer the question of "why?"
Why do they need it if it is not used?
I know why a web browser has a cache. At least the web browser is smart enough to clean that up after a while.
While I would also like to know why, I'm not sure this is a big deal as it seems to me that the remedy to going to be very simple: a) encryption is on by default, and/or b) flushing the database after, say, six months.
Why does the db never get cleared?
If location info is required for an app, why would I want to use info from possibly over a year ago that may no longer be accurate?
I won't put on a tinfoil hat just yet. For now I'll just chalk this issue up to sloppy programming. ;)
Apple still fails to answer the question of "why?"
Why do they need it if it is not used?
I know why a web browser has a cache. At least the web browser is smart enough to clean that up after a while.
While I would also like to know why, I'm not sure this is a big deal as it seems to me that the remedy to going to be very simple: a) encryption is on by default, and/or b) flushing the database after, say, six months.
baryon
Mar 26, 08:31 AM
Unless I'm missing something, Mission Control is added in addition to Expos� as it is now. The old functionality will still be there. As for it being "ruined," a couple of days before the Lion preview the graphic artist I work with most was describing changes he wished they'd make to Expos� and we were laughing together a few days later when we watched the preview and boom, there it was. Incidentally, he makes his living off what he does with his "real" computer.
Unfortunately Expos� as you have it today is gone in Lion, and is replaced by Mission Control. What you still have in Lion is Expos� for the current app, which sort of defeats its purpose as most apps only have a single or not many windows open (thanks to tabs in Safari, etc...).
You no longer have expos� for all windows, which annoys me! You can also no longer see ALL your open windows in one glance, as you could zoom out of Spaces and do an Expos� before. Now you have to flick through all of your spaces one by one in Mission Control to see all your windows. And the icons for each space are tiny, making it very difficult to figure out what's on that space. I have no idea what was wrong with Spaces and Expos� in Leopard, why they needed to change Expos� in Snow Leopard, and why they needed to remove these features altogether in Lion. They were probably the best things in OS X.
Unfortunately Expos� as you have it today is gone in Lion, and is replaced by Mission Control. What you still have in Lion is Expos� for the current app, which sort of defeats its purpose as most apps only have a single or not many windows open (thanks to tabs in Safari, etc...).
You no longer have expos� for all windows, which annoys me! You can also no longer see ALL your open windows in one glance, as you could zoom out of Spaces and do an Expos� before. Now you have to flick through all of your spaces one by one in Mission Control to see all your windows. And the icons for each space are tiny, making it very difficult to figure out what's on that space. I have no idea what was wrong with Spaces and Expos� in Leopard, why they needed to change Expos� in Snow Leopard, and why they needed to remove these features altogether in Lion. They were probably the best things in OS X.
Gatesbasher
Mar 31, 08:26 PM
This is where the Android "community" is going to split.
The ones we've heard from today don't give a crap about "open" or "closed" or Google or anything else other than the fact that Android is not Apple and is stealing some sales from Apple. They'll defend whatever Google does, because all they want is a platform that's not by Apple to take over the mobile space.
The true believers in the "open" propaganda, as ridiculous as it is and as untrue as it's always been, are probably still in a state of shock. By tomorrow they'll split into two warring camps. One will defend everything Google does because they perceive—wrongly of course—that Android is still in some indefinable way more open than iOS, and they'll blow that little invisible kernel of "openness" up until that's all they can see.
The other camp will be viciously angry at Google's betrayal of the True Religion™ and will be flailing around for some other messiah to deliver them from the "Walled Garden" of Apple and now, Android. These are the people who were saying the other day that "Motorola could rot" with their own OS.
Any suggestions on who the zealots will turn to in their hour of despair? I honestly can't think of a candidate, but then I'm not nuts—at least not that way.
The ones we've heard from today don't give a crap about "open" or "closed" or Google or anything else other than the fact that Android is not Apple and is stealing some sales from Apple. They'll defend whatever Google does, because all they want is a platform that's not by Apple to take over the mobile space.
The true believers in the "open" propaganda, as ridiculous as it is and as untrue as it's always been, are probably still in a state of shock. By tomorrow they'll split into two warring camps. One will defend everything Google does because they perceive—wrongly of course—that Android is still in some indefinable way more open than iOS, and they'll blow that little invisible kernel of "openness" up until that's all they can see.
The other camp will be viciously angry at Google's betrayal of the True Religion™ and will be flailing around for some other messiah to deliver them from the "Walled Garden" of Apple and now, Android. These are the people who were saying the other day that "Motorola could rot" with their own OS.
Any suggestions on who the zealots will turn to in their hour of despair? I honestly can't think of a candidate, but then I'm not nuts—at least not that way.
k995
Mar 23, 03:54 AM
To be fair, every smartphone on the market is an iPhone clone and every tablet an iPad clone, so it is all related to Apple in that way.
Complete BS "iphone" lookalikes date back to ebfore the iphone was anounced. So either some companys have people who can predict the future, or the design and tech behind the iphone was aused BEFORe it was released and apple just changed excisting designs.
Ipad is basicly a large smartphone.
Complete BS "iphone" lookalikes date back to ebfore the iphone was anounced. So either some companys have people who can predict the future, or the design and tech behind the iphone was aused BEFORe it was released and apple just changed excisting designs.
Ipad is basicly a large smartphone.
portishead
Apr 12, 02:25 PM
BTW, apparently this site is doing live blogging:
http://www.finalcutmtl.org/2011/04/10/supermeet-live-sur-final-cut-mtl
That's about all I could find.
http://www.finalcutmtl.org/2011/04/10/supermeet-live-sur-final-cut-mtl
That's about all I could find.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 19, 02:46 PM
Are you talking about the Newton, troll?
http://www.thocp.net/hardware/pictures/pda/apple_newton_sml.jpg
I had a Casio Personal Diary in the late 80's that had the exact same grid.
Im not a troll either without Apple I wouldn't have a job.
http://www.thocp.net/hardware/pictures/pda/apple_newton_sml.jpg
I had a Casio Personal Diary in the late 80's that had the exact same grid.
Im not a troll either without Apple I wouldn't have a job.
Willis
Sep 13, 07:37 PM
One could run a Folding@Home process on each core :D
ooooor.... use multiple cores to do one fold... 4 days like my g5 would cut down to like 16 hours... thats mental. awesome... but god damn mental!!
ooooor.... use multiple cores to do one fold... 4 days like my g5 would cut down to like 16 hours... thats mental. awesome... but god damn mental!!
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
centauratlas
Apr 6, 02:19 PM
I read it somewhere, where was it, oh yeah, HERE ( http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/06/apples-suppliers-ship-roughly-2-5-million-ipad-2s-in-march/) that Apple sold around 2.5 million iPad 2s in March (plus a lot of older iPad 1 stock). And that was about 3 weeks from launch day.
And they expect around 12 million per quarter according to the article here earlier today. Talk about a huge difference....nearly 110,000 iPad 2s per day! Plus a lot of original iPads.
And they expect around 12 million per quarter according to the article here earlier today. Talk about a huge difference....nearly 110,000 iPad 2s per day! Plus a lot of original iPads.
APPLENEWBIE
Aug 26, 05:18 PM
One year ago I was being driven nuts by my three office Windows machines (one custom built, two compaqs). Relatively new machines but it was one damned thing after another. A virus here (with Norton installed) a corrupt file there, a dead hard drive here, a spyware infestation there...and then the anti-idiot Windows warnings at every turn (Are you sure you want to do that? Really really sure. Can't I talk you out of that?) I was at wit's end. I was reinstalling the operating system about every 6 to 9 months. I was convinced by a rep at compusa to try a mac. Now I have no windows machines and four macs. No longer do I wonder what new horror is going to happen and cause me endless hours to fix.
I have had zero hardware problems, and of course, no problems with virus's etc. Life is good. I really think that my experience with windows machines is not all that uncommon. Apple stuff just seems better designed and built.
I think that it is easy to forget just how much better (not perfect) this Apple stuff really is than the Windows world.
I have had zero hardware problems, and of course, no problems with virus's etc. Life is good. I really think that my experience with windows machines is not all that uncommon. Apple stuff just seems better designed and built.
I think that it is easy to forget just how much better (not perfect) this Apple stuff really is than the Windows world.
28monkeys
Apr 11, 07:10 PM
iphone 4 out of date? Is that even possible with the mighty apps around to entertain me every second i turn it on!?
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 7, 05:43 PM
Keep that Lotus, you can use it for the British Lightweight race.
I've already done it with a....
300 kW TVR
:D
I love my TVR and my B-Spec driver actually knows how to handle it, so i've been using it as often as appropriate.
I try not to sell any cars unless they are junk (like a 97 Civic or whatever it is. Worst beginner's prize car ever) or if i have two of the same kind.
I've already done it with a....
300 kW TVR
:D
I love my TVR and my B-Spec driver actually knows how to handle it, so i've been using it as often as appropriate.
I try not to sell any cars unless they are junk (like a 97 Civic or whatever it is. Worst beginner's prize car ever) or if i have two of the same kind.
mc68k
Dec 6, 01:20 PM
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?yeah your bspec driver will really suck until he's leveled up a bit. still havent figured out why you would want more than one bspec driver, prob for the later enduro races? got my bspec up to 12, he's racing and overtaking much better now. the amount the bspec driver levels up every time is small, so it's very grind-y but at least you don't have to watch it, and you get some diff gift cars than the same race in a-spec
Maybe I just need to level up?yeah your bspec driver will really suck until he's leveled up a bit. still havent figured out why you would want more than one bspec driver, prob for the later enduro races? got my bspec up to 12, he's racing and overtaking much better now. the amount the bspec driver levels up every time is small, so it's very grind-y but at least you don't have to watch it, and you get some diff gift cars than the same race in a-spec