- Last Active
markbriton said:I tried switching to DDG as my default search engine on my iPhone earlier this year and gave it a month. I really wanted to like it but I ended up going back to Google. I found DDG’s results to be very US focused and since I don’t live in the US a lot of the results weren’t relevant to me. I don’t use any of Google’s other services except YouTube and search. I really want DDG to get better so I can ditch Google for good, so I’m pleased they’re still improving. I’ll give them another try later in the year. I think Apple will end up snapping up DDG. It’s also a terrible name for a search engine, here’s hoping for Apple Search one day!
For those don’t know about the bang shortcuts, there are tons of the, of them, !yt for YouTube, !w for Wikipedia, etc:
entropys said:I’m wondering, is the OpenId Foundation this dude and his keyboard?No.
Community Board Members
Corporate Board Members
MisterKit said:I don’t understand how a product like this will accommodate people with varying degrees of vision. I wear contact lenses for distance but use readers for up close vision. There is no way I could see something on a screen a half inch away from my pupil. I would need the readers or have to take out my contact lenses because I have pretty good nearsighted ability.
Here's a good example product that is probably similar to what Apple is developing:
See section on "Novel Structured Geometric Waveguide Eyepiece":
and the note on DOF at the bottom of the page:Depth of Field: Typical AR headsets relay the image to one or two discrete focal planes. This results in what is called “accommodation-vergence mismatch” - for example, depth cues and parallax may suggest that a virtual object is six feet away, but the wearer’s eyes are need to focus 1 foot away to see a sharp image. Accommodation-vergence mismatch can lead to eyestrain and discomfort after prolonged periods of usage. A select few technologies (our’s and Letinar’s pin mirrors) have unlimited depth of field - the in-focus regions extends from a few centimeters in front of the wearer all the way to infinity.
hodar said:Yes, it will get faster - but this is not due to any major accomplishments by Apple.This is largely due to the work being done by very bright people at AMD/Intel/nVidia - who are enabling Apple to benefit. It would be interesting to benchmark the price/Performance of the A-series chips from Apple in a desktop/server application, against AMD/Intel/nVidia and work in that direction.But, currently - to give credit to Apple, is akin to giving credit to the cock that crows every morning at sunrise.
JWSC said:All of a sudden, I want to know less about the Apple car. My enthusiasm is draining. Apple might want to consider taking control of the news narrative at this point.
tonghi said:Two model numbers either means 2 different clock speeds or CPUs with the same screen size OR 2 different screen sizes with possibly different clock speeds or CPUs.
I don't think that they've ever used different model numbers for clock speeds or RAM configurations. There's not necessarily a set precedent here, looking over the past few years of iMacs.commentzilla said:This seems incomplete. Two models is a very narrow range. Does that mean each will come with only one RAM configuration? 21" 16GB and 27" 32GB? Or will it just again be 16GB all the way around?
They have for GPU configuration though:
2020 27" 5K iMac is either iMac20,1 or iMac20,2 — the latter if it has the Radeon Pro 5700 and 5700 XT, so I'm assuming there's something on those models differentiating the motherboard from those with the Radeon Pro 5300 and Radeon Pro 5500 XT.
4K = iMac19,2
5K = iMac19,1
2017:21.5"(non-4K) = iMac18,1
4K = iMac18,2
5K = iMac18,3
5K = iMac15,1
21.5 = iMac16,1
4K = iMac16,2
5K = iMac17,1
So it's not certain but one would reasonably guess this round is two sizes, potentially the rumored 24" and 30". It could also be two variants of the 24" with different motherboard designs (ie GPU as in 2020 with the 5700) but I think that's far less likely.
rob53 said:OutdoorAppDeveloper said:I wish the article had compared the SanDisk drives to the Samsung T7 drives in terms of both real world performance and price. I keep buying the T7 drives as they have been extremely reliable and the price is reasonable. No point in buying slow poorly made thumb drives when a 500 GB T7 costs $80 on sale (which it often is).
Why can't they come up with a shorter URL????