or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by melgross

For the usage model we're talking about, it still doesn't work. No matter how you slice all those cores, many will be doing nothing most of the time.
It's an interesting idea. We know that it takes a processor that's emulating another to have to be about five times as powerful as the one being emulated. That's a hard thing. It's why Macs were so slow with Virtual PC and other emulation software. So I suppose that Apple could use a bunch of cores for that emulation.But I have a better idea that I've been flinging about, here, and in other places. It's also known that just a handful of the code in a chip comprises 80% of...
Supposedly, but many apps are just not that parallel to begin with. With those, not much can be done.I suggest that you watch your cores when running some apps, and see what happens. If you only have two cores, you won't learn much, but if you have four or more, you'd be surprised.
This is where we get a problem. Few apps are optimized for more than two cores. That will remain true for some time. Remember that there are still a lot of two core CPU's out there. Perhaps half of the current pc's have two core chips. Developers are finding it hard to parallel most apps meaningfully past two cores.There are apps such as rendering apps, video editing apps, and a few others that do use numerous cores efficiently. But most don't.A problem in assuming that 32...
I wish I could remember his name, and I've got the article bookmarked somewhere, but a writer wrote a few years ago wrote that Jobs didn't have a reality distortion field. That instead, he had a reality creation field.I really liked that description, and I will never forget it. Many people have reality distortion fields, it's really not hard. But Jobs did make his reality our reality. With others, you walk out of the room, and you go back to the way things were. But with...
What I always tell people, when advising them on product purchases, particularly cameras, is what is good enough? If you shoot for Flickr, Facebook, email, etc, then a smartphone camera is more than good enough, as long as it's a good camera, that is, good dynamic range, sharp across the field, doesn't require too many corrections as far as color goes or exposure, etc. after all no one really needs 8MP for those purposes.Even for an 8x12 print, the iPhone camera is pretty...
Yeah, I don't agree either. When buying the first part of the new generation, you at least are assured that you have the newest design for two years. When buying the S version, you still have all of the flaws of that model to deal with, major or minor, as it may be for that newer version model, but you now also know that in one year, your phone will be succeeded by a major transition. I find that more frustrating.
I've read about that module as well. But most of my career was in commercial photography and running a commercial photo lab, and I'm pretty familliar with cameras, lenses and optics in general having taken a year of optics while minoring in physics. What I can say is that first of all, the only camera that I know of that does use this module, the HTC One, doesn't use it for zoom. I doubt it would give a high quality image merging the two images like that.And think about...
Considering that his take on proper design is that the entire device perform properly, and that design doesn't stop at the outer shell, then yes. Everything that I've designed was designed for best performance and ease of use. The outer attractiveness is an important part, but just a part.The "problem" of the slight projection of the camera is the requirement of a certain minimum thickness for the module. If Apple cared less about the quality of the camera, they could have...
And I'd bet that most of us don't care.
New Posts  All Forums: