or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by d-range

Ok allow me to rephrase then: I think it's a bad idea Apple is wasting resources on this, not because I think they are unable to execute the idea better than everyone before them, but because I think the idea is fundamentally flawed in the first place. If all you need is a glorified storyboarding tool, you don't have to wait for Apple, we've had that for years. I remember ObjectVision from the Windows 3.1 era, it basically tried the exact same idea 20 years ago. Many...
Maybe you can elaborate this a little further, because I fail to see how any of Apple's previous success stories offer any insights about completely unrelated endeavors such as a programming language that basically writes programs for you.Are you implying that anything Apple tries is an automatic guarantee for success, just because they know how to build great MP3 players, phones, computers and tablets?
By the way, does anyone else see the irony in Apple developing something like this? I thought they Apple was big on iOS applications using all of the unique iOS features and capabilities (and rightfully so), and the only way you can do that is to invest in learning how to use the tools that allow you to do that, which means Objective-C, Cocoa, XCode. If this means the bar for entry is too high for people who don't know software development, than so be it. There's a...
Dear god no, not another tool for 'non-programmers' to make applications. This idea has failed every.single.time anyone tried this, Google App Inventor being one of the last well-known examples. Apple should know better. The whole idea behind programming is that, since computers cannot think by themselves, you have to tell them exactly what to do. So unless you are 'programming' the umpteenth soundboard, or some picture of a monkey that starts making sounds if you shake...
I'm not surprised they are binning the A5 CPU's, and I'm not surprised they are using the dual-core rejects as single core in the Apple TV. All makes perfect sense. Wat I do find newsworthy is that apparently, Apple is using the Apple TV as some kind of test bed for 32 nm parts. If true, I don't think this is very common in the semiconductor industry. Usually foundries like to optimize every process node to the maximum, and take big and discrete steps to newer process...
I do think there are areas left where the Mac Pro is still relevant. If you really need massive CPU power and storage capacity, and you need OS X, there really isn't any alternative yet. Think about render farms, scientific computing, that kind of stuff. It's a small market, but still a valid one, and I don't expect Apple to phase the Mac Pro out just yet. They'll probably have to upgrade it at least once or twice. That said, eventually I think the Mac Pro will go the way...
I don't consider a quad-i7 'extreme high-end', I was comparing the top-end of the iMac range against a Mac-Pro with dual 6-core Xeons. The point was whether a current iMac would work well as a development workstation, or that you would want to have a Mac Pro for that. IMO, there is very little to gain using a Mac Pro to run XCode, as long as you have a decent CPU in your iMac, lots of RAM and and SSD. You'll save lots of money and you will have a very hard time seeing any...
Development work doesn't scale to infinite cores. If you have a decent quad-core CPU, compilation runs will not be able to saturate all of them because things get I/O-bound and build dependencies start to limit further build parallelisation. Adding more does not make sense. I have iPulse running on my quad-core iMac, so I can see CPU load in real-time when building stuff in XCode. It clearly shows that during large compiles, most of the time only 2 cores are completely...
Probably they just updated some parts of their site back-end in preparation for new stuff coming later this month. I've seen the 'we'll be back' thing without any product updates on multiple occasions, just before the site got a big update.
Very interesting, can't disagree with any of that. Right now with extremely fast interconnects such as Thunderbolt you should already be able to build a pretty powerful compute cluster from just a stack of Mac Mini's. It's not nearly as convenient or flexible enough to replace a badass rig with lots of CPU, RAM, IO and graphics performance, at least not yet, but who knows how the current technologies evolve. Imagine fiber optic Thunderbolt but almost as fast as the local...
New Posts  All Forums: