programmer

chasm said:

netrox said:

Exactly why do we need to keep adding more CPU cores when most creative oriented applications would benefit from having more GPU cores? 

Not that I’m the last word on this topic, but to put this VERY simply CPUs do math and GPUs take that math and manipulate pixels. Graphics are created through math, so more CPUs enable GPUs to do their job better.

More GPUs are needed when you have really really large screens/more screens. More CPUs are needed when you need more graphics.

Sorry, but that is wrong.  GPUs excel at doing math at high memory bandwidths... but they basically need to be able to do the math in parallel, and the application has to be written specifically to use the GPU.  CPUs are the default place for code to run, and are generally better at doing complex logic with lots of decisions, randomly chasing through memory for data, and doing less "orderly" computations.  To leverage multiple CPUs, the application has to be written to do that and it isn't the default.  Code typically starts its existence on a single CPU, then the programmer improves it to take advantage of multiple CPUs, then they might improve it further to either use the CPU SIMD or matrix hardware, or re-write critical pieces to run on the GPU.  These days it is also quite common for application programmers to use libraries (often Apple's) which do things like leverage multiple cores, SIMD, matrix hardware, and GPUs.  Creative oriented applications are often graphics or audio heavy, and those things can usually take advantage of all this potential hardware parallelism as long as they are optimized to do so (and the good ones are).

Weird title to the article.  The iPhone doesn't prevent innovation, it enables it.  Or rather, the revenue from it enables a LOT of innovation.  Creating new stuff and turning it into successful product is really hard, and really expensive.  The "creating new stuff" also gets far too much attention, and the challenge of the latter is greatly unappreciated.  Tim seems to get slammed for not being good at the former, but he's actually really good at the latter (and I suspect he stays out of the way of people good at the former).

So... radical question here:  if these keyboards are plugged in, do they use USB to communicate or are they still bluetooth?  They're going to be useless to me if they still use BT when plugged in.

dewme said:

Where this may be a bigger concern is if you want to use a mounting fixture that allows you to mount the Mac mini on the back of a monitor that has a VESA mount. However, I’m pretty sure that makers of special mounting adapters will find a way to accommodate the strange placement of the power button.

A mount for the mini should probably put the top of it against the mounting surface, making a button on the bottom more accessible, not less.  From what I've seen of rackmounted many-mini configurations, this button placement may also be superior than on the back.

It’s almost like they don’t want people pushing that button.  And don’t want accidental pushes when trying to use the ports.  And the machine is tiny and weighs practically nothing, so if you do have to push it tilting it slightly is hardly a problem, if even necessary.

Seems like making a mountain out of a molehill.