Lukeit
Mar 31, 11:01 AM
Yea it's a little buggy right now. You can delete apps the same as as before with some added frustration.
1. Press and hold, CMD+OPT+CTRL (so they all wiggle)
2. Next press and hold one app until they stop wiggling.
3. Now click the apps you want once to delete them.
4. Make sure you hold those 3 keys throughout all steps.
The only thing I haven't figured out yet is adding apps manually. When I drag them to the LaunchPad icon, nothing happens.
Thanks SO much... you made my day!
1. Press and hold, CMD+OPT+CTRL (so they all wiggle)
2. Next press and hold one app until they stop wiggling.
3. Now click the apps you want once to delete them.
4. Make sure you hold those 3 keys throughout all steps.
The only thing I haven't figured out yet is adding apps manually. When I drag them to the LaunchPad icon, nothing happens.
Thanks SO much... you made my day!
Hellhammer
Jun 23, 04:11 AM
No thank you! Touch is useless in computer size of an iMac as after 10 mins your arma are full of pain and it's ridiculously slow too.
MacVault
Sep 6, 08:59 AM
Maybe i am alone on this one....
I think the 24" iMac G5 is the beginning of the end of the G5 iMac. We all watched as the outstanding G4 iMac grew from a 15" to a 17" and finally to 20". While the stunning design remained the same, the 20" just didn't look as good as the 2 previous models. The proportions were wrong and it looked top-heavy.
I am sitting in front of an original 23" Apple Display (plastic rather than aluminium). The new iMac cannot be much smaller than it. I firmly believe that the 24" will be, and should be, as big as it gets. I just hope that heat doesn't become a problem with the Core 2 Duo chips else the G5 iMac may have to evolve into a new enclosure.
Anyone else have thoughts similar?
What do you mean by "G5"??? PowerPC is long gone from Macs.
I think the 24" iMac G5 is the beginning of the end of the G5 iMac. We all watched as the outstanding G4 iMac grew from a 15" to a 17" and finally to 20". While the stunning design remained the same, the 20" just didn't look as good as the 2 previous models. The proportions were wrong and it looked top-heavy.
I am sitting in front of an original 23" Apple Display (plastic rather than aluminium). The new iMac cannot be much smaller than it. I firmly believe that the 24" will be, and should be, as big as it gets. I just hope that heat doesn't become a problem with the Core 2 Duo chips else the G5 iMac may have to evolve into a new enclosure.
Anyone else have thoughts similar?
What do you mean by "G5"??? PowerPC is long gone from Macs.
newrigel
Nov 16, 11:03 PM
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.
CONTENT CREATION PRO'S will see the benefit! Like DAW's host running multiple plugins and virtual instruments etc. Video guy's that are rendering in the background while doing a file format conversion task while @ the same time doing a cut copy paste edit on some video... Any processes that are CONCURRENT! THESE are the things that will take advantage of multiple cores... the kids on myspace farting around on the net emailing and such are really useless for multiple cores and us pro guy's NEED this multitasking power... BRING IT ON!
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.
CONTENT CREATION PRO'S will see the benefit! Like DAW's host running multiple plugins and virtual instruments etc. Video guy's that are rendering in the background while doing a file format conversion task while @ the same time doing a cut copy paste edit on some video... Any processes that are CONCURRENT! THESE are the things that will take advantage of multiple cores... the kids on myspace farting around on the net emailing and such are really useless for multiple cores and us pro guy's NEED this multitasking power... BRING IT ON!
quagmire
Jan 5, 08:01 AM
To the BMW guys, how reliable is the E46 325i?
I have a chance to pick one up for a fairly low cost (Less than $6,000 canadian). It is pretty much mint and VERY well maintained.
Car has a bit higher miles (~125,000 miles/ 205,000km), but I am guessing well maintained they will last quite a while?
I really enjoyed my brothers E36, and I just got rid of my project cars so I figure this would be a nice change.
My brothers/dads old E46 330xi has been giving him trouble with 150,000 miles on it. Things do wear out, but it seems like every time I hear about the car, it is broken.
I have a chance to pick one up for a fairly low cost (Less than $6,000 canadian). It is pretty much mint and VERY well maintained.
Car has a bit higher miles (~125,000 miles/ 205,000km), but I am guessing well maintained they will last quite a while?
I really enjoyed my brothers E36, and I just got rid of my project cars so I figure this would be a nice change.
My brothers/dads old E46 330xi has been giving him trouble with 150,000 miles on it. Things do wear out, but it seems like every time I hear about the car, it is broken.
levitynyc
Mar 25, 03:50 PM
Time to grab a 10 foot HDMI cord.
heffemonkeyman
Sep 7, 12:59 PM
On my lunch break at work, I just downloaded a couple of HD trailers, both 2min30sec in length; 1 at 480p and the other at 720p. My set up is an 3.0Ghz Pentium D, 1G ram, 256K Nvidia Gforce 6800, 20" Dell Digital LCD.
I could tell no difference in file quality. The problem lies in download time. Both files average dl speed was 150KBps. Thats 1.2Mbps if my math is right. The 420p file took 4:28 to dl, translating to 3:34:24 for a 2hr movie. For 720p, it took 12:39, meaning a full movie would take 9:28:45.
I know my cable provider offers up to 4Mbps downlaods, for about $120/month. And thats before the cable servise itself. Even then its not dedicated. Most people with cable will opt for their providers basic service ,like $40 - 50/month for 500-600kbps, or 1/2 as fast as my test. The movies would take twice as long to dl. 19hrs to downlaod will not fly. 7hrs may not either.
If the compression works to get a DVD quality movie down to 1G, then it could be downloaded in about 1h50mim, nearly realtime at work, or 3h40min at home. At work, I would only need maybe a 15min buffer before I start watching, and not catch up to the dl. But at home, I would need about 1h40min buffer. Maybe this is acceptable to some, but if I can walk to Wal-mart or Blockbuster and back in that time, then what's the consumer advantage beyond the novelty?
I'm sure apple engineers can do these same napkin calculations. There would have to be some alternative to the straight dl. Maybe a torrent of some kind built into iTunes 7. I don't know. Just thinking.
This is a good test, but your connection is not fast enough for this to be viable. If your getting only getting 1.2mbps, that not going to cut it.
Bandwith is a huge issue. In my area, Seattle, I can get Comcast cable for about $50/mo and I get 6-8mbps solid download. So I can stream anything that is encoded at 6-8mbps just fine. The 720p trailers are about 4-8mbps, so it works for me.
I know not everyone can get that kind of bandwidth/price, but they will soon. I think this is where Apple is going, but it's not going to work for everyone. At least not right away. But maybe enough to be profitable?
I could tell no difference in file quality. The problem lies in download time. Both files average dl speed was 150KBps. Thats 1.2Mbps if my math is right. The 420p file took 4:28 to dl, translating to 3:34:24 for a 2hr movie. For 720p, it took 12:39, meaning a full movie would take 9:28:45.
I know my cable provider offers up to 4Mbps downlaods, for about $120/month. And thats before the cable servise itself. Even then its not dedicated. Most people with cable will opt for their providers basic service ,like $40 - 50/month for 500-600kbps, or 1/2 as fast as my test. The movies would take twice as long to dl. 19hrs to downlaod will not fly. 7hrs may not either.
If the compression works to get a DVD quality movie down to 1G, then it could be downloaded in about 1h50mim, nearly realtime at work, or 3h40min at home. At work, I would only need maybe a 15min buffer before I start watching, and not catch up to the dl. But at home, I would need about 1h40min buffer. Maybe this is acceptable to some, but if I can walk to Wal-mart or Blockbuster and back in that time, then what's the consumer advantage beyond the novelty?
I'm sure apple engineers can do these same napkin calculations. There would have to be some alternative to the straight dl. Maybe a torrent of some kind built into iTunes 7. I don't know. Just thinking.
This is a good test, but your connection is not fast enough for this to be viable. If your getting only getting 1.2mbps, that not going to cut it.
Bandwith is a huge issue. In my area, Seattle, I can get Comcast cable for about $50/mo and I get 6-8mbps solid download. So I can stream anything that is encoded at 6-8mbps just fine. The 720p trailers are about 4-8mbps, so it works for me.
I know not everyone can get that kind of bandwidth/price, but they will soon. I think this is where Apple is going, but it's not going to work for everyone. At least not right away. But maybe enough to be profitable?
biscuitdunker
Apr 3, 12:50 PM
wow an ipad 2 being used in the dark and it doesnt leak light! where can i buy one?;)
QCassidy352
Sep 1, 12:45 PM
nooooo, not merom!! Give the imac the conroe processor it deserves!! It's a desktop, and if it could handle a G5 it can handle a conroe. :(
But the 23" idea is very cool. :D
But the 23" idea is very cool. :D
AhmedFaisal
Apr 12, 02:10 PM
I don't think people are pumping it up at all. I personally think that people who can't drive a standard transmission, are just lazy (and that goes for my mother, and her habit of doing her makeup while driving). People only get autos, because they don't want to have to "inconvenience" themselves with pushing down on the clutch and throwing the car into the next gear; because doing so requires them to stop shoving food down their face, or to get of the damn phone. I also hate to hear people moan about how inconvenient a standard transmission is during stop and go traffic; I mean it's not that bad, and I recently took my standard transmission accord to chicago and drove in stop and go traffic for over two hours, and it was not as annoying as some would make it out to be. People are just too willing to sacrifice the fun of driving for convenience.
Wow, generalize much? I want to see you talk after being a rep for a while or with a 1.5 hour commute (one way) like I have now in the New York area. During my sales tour of duty I literally lived in the car for 14-16 hours a day and yes, I did take phone calls (via hands free) and ate/drank while driving. There wasn't much of a choice, only time you could eat and drink was between calls and if you rep onc products you have a lot of driving to do to get from call to call. And right now it's the same. Eating breakfast and dinner in the car saves me at least an hour each day for sleep and I don't get much as it is since I am booking 12-14 hour days on average.
Yeah, I can drive stick and if I can ever afford a fun car for driving on the weekend, I might get a manual again but for everyday commute I take an auto any day. For me driving is a chore right now, there is no fun to be had considering how much I drive each day.
Wow, generalize much? I want to see you talk after being a rep for a while or with a 1.5 hour commute (one way) like I have now in the New York area. During my sales tour of duty I literally lived in the car for 14-16 hours a day and yes, I did take phone calls (via hands free) and ate/drank while driving. There wasn't much of a choice, only time you could eat and drink was between calls and if you rep onc products you have a lot of driving to do to get from call to call. And right now it's the same. Eating breakfast and dinner in the car saves me at least an hour each day for sleep and I don't get much as it is since I am booking 12-14 hour days on average.
Yeah, I can drive stick and if I can ever afford a fun car for driving on the weekend, I might get a manual again but for everyday commute I take an auto any day. For me driving is a chore right now, there is no fun to be had considering how much I drive each day.
Multimedia
Sep 1, 01:38 PM
LOL If only it were that easy.
I bought the MBP because suspiciously my PB G4 decided to die on me right around that time and I, of course, rationalized and used it as an excuse with myaself... and now I kick myself in the butt for it too because 1 week after I bought my MBP, Apple released the 17" MBP for the same price I paid for my 15".**kick*Well, you could have returned it for a 10% restocking fee up to 10 days after purchase and bought the 17" then. Did you not know that? :confused:
I bought the MBP because suspiciously my PB G4 decided to die on me right around that time and I, of course, rationalized and used it as an excuse with myaself... and now I kick myself in the butt for it too because 1 week after I bought my MBP, Apple released the 17" MBP for the same price I paid for my 15".**kick*Well, you could have returned it for a 10% restocking fee up to 10 days after purchase and bought the 17" then. Did you not know that? :confused:
Josias
Nov 27, 01:55 PM
It kills me that the least expensive Apple display is $700. I just can't justify the tax over a Dell display, and I'm amazed how others can. A Dell 2007WFP (their 20" widescreen display which uses the same panel that's found in Apple's 20") is $400. It also sports inputs for VGA, composite and S-Video. And for a Dell, the display is reasonably attractive.
The Apple displays give you a shiny aluminum bezel, firewire routing, and software display controls. Is that enough to merit a 75% markup?
So, I'm thrilled if this is true and Apple is putting out a less-expensive display option. But I'd love it if they brought the rest of their lineup into check with the competition.
Allright, for the 473rd time! They don't use the same panel!:eek:
See? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
The Apple displays give you a shiny aluminum bezel, firewire routing, and software display controls. Is that enough to merit a 75% markup?
So, I'm thrilled if this is true and Apple is putting out a less-expensive display option. But I'd love it if they brought the rest of their lineup into check with the competition.
Allright, for the 473rd time! They don't use the same panel!:eek:
See? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
gnasher729
Feb 26, 12:18 PM
Hold it right there! The Kia models sold in Europe actually nowadays borrow from the current Hyundai Motor Company parts bin, and as such are way more civilized cars. Anyone who's driven the Kia Cee'd hatchback in Europe know it's a way better car than people think.
Mostly because they are actually made in Europe. And Kia pinched the guy who designed the Audi TT to design the Kia Ceed. But I really wouldn't know who is borrowing from whom.
Mostly because they are actually made in Europe. And Kia pinched the guy who designed the Audi TT to design the Kia Ceed. But I really wouldn't know who is borrowing from whom.
twoodcc
Mar 1, 12:45 PM
congrats to SciFrog for 5 million points for MacRumors!
iEvolution
Mar 22, 09:15 PM
Nice! Best news I've heard for a long time.
I will be updating to the 220GB just for video output..would be nice if they would add high definition output.
I love the people that act like 220GB is a ridiculous amount, with the file sizes always increasing (FYI, the estimate of 40,000 songs with the current 160GB is a miscalculation, how many things are still selling 128kbps songs and how many people are still using that bit rate?) an increase in capacity is ALWAYS welcome.
Further, add videos to the classic and 220GB would be considered small.
I will be updating to the 220GB just for video output..would be nice if they would add high definition output.
I love the people that act like 220GB is a ridiculous amount, with the file sizes always increasing (FYI, the estimate of 40,000 songs with the current 160GB is a miscalculation, how many things are still selling 128kbps songs and how many people are still using that bit rate?) an increase in capacity is ALWAYS welcome.
Further, add videos to the classic and 220GB would be considered small.
KevanDual2.5
Sep 7, 03:12 AM
What do you mean by "G5"??? PowerPC is long gone from Macs.
As other people have recognised..... the reference to G5 is in relation to the design not the chipset inside.
As other people have recognised..... the reference to G5 is in relation to the design not the chipset inside.
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.
lyzardking
Dec 22, 02:01 PM
Are they having problems finishing on time or do they quit before they get all the way finished?
I had two of them (on two different machines) just stop, all eight cores using 0% CPU.
Prior to that I'd get one done about 2 days early (with killer points) on each machine.
So I've restarted the client (dumped prefs/reinstalled F@H) on each machine and now have a completion date of ~12/25 (fingers crossed) for both machines.
Congrats to twoodcc for hitting the 3 mil mark!
I had two of them (on two different machines) just stop, all eight cores using 0% CPU.
Prior to that I'd get one done about 2 days early (with killer points) on each machine.
So I've restarted the client (dumped prefs/reinstalled F@H) on each machine and now have a completion date of ~12/25 (fingers crossed) for both machines.
Congrats to twoodcc for hitting the 3 mil mark!
CorvusCamenarum
Mar 19, 01:23 PM
Doesn't seem to stop Obama from going on TV to claim credit though.
Maybe he thinks if he does enough of nothing, he'll get himself another Nobel Prize.
Still, it's good to see other governments taking the point on this. We've got enough on our plate as it is.
Maybe he thinks if he does enough of nothing, he'll get himself another Nobel Prize.
Still, it's good to see other governments taking the point on this. We've got enough on our plate as it is.
Tyler23
Mar 31, 07:47 AM
I'm pretty sure I'm the only one that really likes the look of the new ical
Lollypop
Aug 16, 07:57 AM
Its going to be extremly tough to decide between a wii and a fullscreen ipod. I really want a wii.
I didnt even think about the wii.... :eek: I still dont see why nintendo and apple cant get in bed together, they both would like to see M$ fail, and they both could profit from a aliance, just imagine, pluging the ipod into the wii and then shopping for music on the wii... :cool:
I didnt even think about the wii.... :eek: I still dont see why nintendo and apple cant get in bed together, they both would like to see M$ fail, and they both could profit from a aliance, just imagine, pluging the ipod into the wii and then shopping for music on the wii... :cool:
peapody
Nov 28, 09:20 AM
Well that MBA didn't last too long. How come you're bailing on it?
I didn't even open the MBA to be honest. Bailing because it was $1500 haha. And I just couldn't bring myself to have a second computer that is that price with those specs. And I have a feeling in my bones that the resale value will suck on the first gen 11.6".
I didn't even open the MBA to be honest. Bailing because it was $1500 haha. And I just couldn't bring myself to have a second computer that is that price with those specs. And I have a feeling in my bones that the resale value will suck on the first gen 11.6".
MacSween
Sep 14, 09:07 AM
I don't know of anyone having a problem with the new iphone! I know that it is possible to make the reception problem happen, but I could also "make" reception problems happen on every cell phone I've ever owned.
QuantumLo0p
Mar 6, 02:23 PM
Why do Americans harbor hate for diesel? I'm not very familiar with the differences between the fuels, other than gasoline is more refined.
There are a lot of old perceptions about diesel. I love diesel; they are inherently more efficient than gasoline engines.
I could say something like- "there are a lot of people in the US stuck on old tech, out dated, dirty, inefficient, gas powered cars that don't last as long as diesels nor have as good as ROI as diesels" but I wouldn't want to upset anyone who owns a technically inferior vehicle so I will keep my thoughts to myself.
:D
There are a lot of old perceptions about diesel. I love diesel; they are inherently more efficient than gasoline engines.
I could say something like- "there are a lot of people in the US stuck on old tech, out dated, dirty, inefficient, gas powered cars that don't last as long as diesels nor have as good as ROI as diesels" but I wouldn't want to upset anyone who owns a technically inferior vehicle so I will keep my thoughts to myself.
:D