OllyW
Dec 29, 11:24 AM
She's obviously anorexic: Every time she looks in the mirror she sees a fat person. :)
Indeed...
http://www.weightlosssurgerychannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/donna-simpson.jpg
Indeed...
http://www.weightlosssurgerychannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/donna-simpson.jpg
jtara
Apr 14, 11:14 AM
Interesting possibility. It would be extremely difficult to emulate a complete iOS device (custom ASICs and all). But Apple could emulate just enough ARM instructions to emulate an app that was compiled by Xcode & LLVM (which would limit the way ARM instructions were generated), and used only legal public iOS APIs (instead of emulating hardware and all the registers), which could be translated in Cocoa APIs to display on a Mac OS X machine.
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
TuffLuffJimmy
Apr 24, 10:23 AM
I just found that the person that was beat up was transgender and this was a hate crime. How come this is not all over the news? I guess hate crimes are okay now by black people but if a white person did this it would be the end of the world.
They seemed pretty pissed off at her. I highly doubt they were beating her up like that simply because she's transgender. If they end up getting charged with a hate crime I'll lose a little more faith in humanity.
They seemed pretty pissed off at her. I highly doubt they were beating her up like that simply because she's transgender. If they end up getting charged with a hate crime I'll lose a little more faith in humanity.
Cheerwino
Apr 14, 10:43 AM
I think you are all wrong. On the BMW model names "ix" stands for a fuel injection engine and four-wheel drive. I believe there is an OS M coming for certain BMW models.
+1
OS M-series would be awesome but I just can't afford the insurance. :eek:
+1
OS M-series would be awesome but I just can't afford the insurance. :eek:
more...
cmaier
Apr 22, 12:35 PM
Wait what ? Apple's complaint had multiple utility patents, design patents, trademark infringement claims and trade dress claims. That's pretty broad, not specific.
No, there were many specific allegation (for example the patent claims), and many others (trade dress) aimed at a broader range of devices. And for the claims that don't require pleading with great specificity, they did give examples.
No, there were many specific allegation (for example the patent claims), and many others (trade dress) aimed at a broader range of devices. And for the claims that don't require pleading with great specificity, they did give examples.
NightFox
Apr 14, 05:31 AM
OK, I have two problems with this being anything more than just a glitch.
First, it's for developers to define which devices their apps are compatible with. When Apple does bring out a new device, it has never updated the compatibility of existing apps AFAIK.
Second, if there was a new device or iOS>OSX functionality on the way, updating the App store to show compatibility would have been one of the very last stages before (or even after) launch. As we've had NO indication or rumours of either of these things being forthcoming, I really can't imagine a major launch by Apple within the next few days.
It's nice to have something to get excited about, but I think the only relevance in this placeholder is the ix to the IX Legion, i.e. it'll simply vanish without a trace.
First, it's for developers to define which devices their apps are compatible with. When Apple does bring out a new device, it has never updated the compatibility of existing apps AFAIK.
Second, if there was a new device or iOS>OSX functionality on the way, updating the App store to show compatibility would have been one of the very last stages before (or even after) launch. As we've had NO indication or rumours of either of these things being forthcoming, I really can't imagine a major launch by Apple within the next few days.
It's nice to have something to get excited about, but I think the only relevance in this placeholder is the ix to the IX Legion, i.e. it'll simply vanish without a trace.
more...
plinden
Oct 19, 01:27 AM
Don't know if this has been posted elsewhere, but Apple's pc share has grown to 6.1% in the US; we trail by 0.3 percentage points for third place.
10% is in sight. Perhaps by the end of 2007!
http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2158
Hmm, interesting. 4.8% -> 6.1% in the US in one quarter. And if their figures for the world wide sales are correct, 2.4% -> 2.7% worldwide.
10% is in sight. Perhaps by the end of 2007!
http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2158
Hmm, interesting. 4.8% -> 6.1% in the US in one quarter. And if their figures for the world wide sales are correct, 2.4% -> 2.7% worldwide.
gh0sted
Jul 15, 09:14 PM
Microsoft is denying it is true. Being that they need the record labels to sign off on their music store, I doubt they'd infringe on already set licenses and risk a music business revolt.
more...
iMikeT
Apr 22, 06:53 PM
MacRUMORS.
MacRumors
Apr 12, 08:58 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/12/iphone-5-introduction-planned-for-apples-september-media-event/)
http://cdn.macrumors.com/article/2011/02/22/095215-iphone_4_side_shot.jpg
more...
%IMG_DESC_11%
%IMG_DESC_12%
more...
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
more...
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
more...
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
http://cdn.macrumors.com/article/2011/02/22/095215-iphone_4_side_shot.jpg
more...
Master-D
Apr 4, 02:19 AM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5097/5588279616_ea0e50516f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/damoncrane/)
this is where boris and the clan are plotting how we can all pay for the olympics with parking tickets :rolleyes:
this is where boris and the clan are plotting how we can all pay for the olympics with parking tickets :rolleyes:
damixt
Mar 16, 07:26 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
I'm at Cerritos and there are 5 people in line right now.
I'm at Cerritos and there are 5 people in line right now.
more...
firestarter
Apr 24, 08:19 PM
Do you have a daughter?
Nope.
Have you ever met or talked with someone who is transgender?
Nope.
Have you ever met or talked with someone who is transgender?
*LTD*
Apr 22, 04:56 PM
Ooooh lemme post my mock-up too! Please? Please??
http://cdn.blisstree.com/files/2010/09/wenn2258639-271x400.jpg
Now THAT'S thin!
http://cdn.blisstree.com/files/2010/09/wenn2258639-271x400.jpg
Now THAT'S thin!
more...
yellow
Dec 1, 02:57 PM
I do, and so does anyone who has a classic environment of System 7 and earlier for classic compatibility reasons.
Of course, and I meant that in the 'general sense'. I have long since abandoned the use of Classic on any of my OS X Macs or any of the Macs I support. AppleTalk is so deprecated that I can hardly believe that anyone will be able to use it much longer. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if it was completely absent from 10.5.
As for the AFP needing AppleTalk, I'm glad you linked the correction. As AppleTalk was an Apple prorietary networking protocol and more and more places were dropping support for AppleTalk routing between subnets/routers (it is PROHIBITIVELY expensive for routers that will pass AT traffic) AFP moved to AFPoverTCP.
I do, and so does anyone who has a classic environment of System 7 and earlier for classic compatibility reasons.
Which makes it even MORE odd that it's enabled by default in MacTels, which don't run Classic. :confused:
Of course, and I meant that in the 'general sense'. I have long since abandoned the use of Classic on any of my OS X Macs or any of the Macs I support. AppleTalk is so deprecated that I can hardly believe that anyone will be able to use it much longer. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if it was completely absent from 10.5.
As for the AFP needing AppleTalk, I'm glad you linked the correction. As AppleTalk was an Apple prorietary networking protocol and more and more places were dropping support for AppleTalk routing between subnets/routers (it is PROHIBITIVELY expensive for routers that will pass AT traffic) AFP moved to AFPoverTCP.
I do, and so does anyone who has a classic environment of System 7 and earlier for classic compatibility reasons.
Which makes it even MORE odd that it's enabled by default in MacTels, which don't run Classic. :confused:
Surely
Sep 15, 07:36 PM
A new pet:
http://www.hexbug.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/296x/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/h/e/hexoriggrnfront_950x950_1_3.jpg
http://www.hexbug.com/skin/frontend/ifi/hexbug/images/sellpage/original/hexorigsellpagemast_742x159.jpg
http://www.hexbug.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/296x/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/h/e/hexoriggrnfront_950x950_1_3.jpg
http://www.hexbug.com/skin/frontend/ifi/hexbug/images/sellpage/original/hexorigsellpagemast_742x159.jpg
more...
*LTD*
Apr 24, 03:25 PM
America: technologically ahead, SOCIALLY BACKWARD.
Bad combination.
Bad combination.
SolarJ
May 3, 09:06 AM
I was hoping for the 24" to come back:(:(
axual
Apr 17, 08:35 PM
Finally, the long awaited, highly anticipated iDoorknob ... Yes! :D
spicyapple
Aug 15, 09:54 AM
Safari improvements are most needed, especially Safari Find seems like something I'll use more often.
OneIzDead
Apr 18, 08:15 PM
Did you have these Gestures enabled before?
i had to activate the multi-touch gestures with "Xcode", the new 4.3.2 update doesn't activate multi-touch....
i had to activate the multi-touch gestures with "Xcode", the new 4.3.2 update doesn't activate multi-touch....
spyderracer393
Jul 24, 08:48 PM
I voted negative on this story. As I was hoping that Apple would concentrate on fixing the sticking scrollbars on the current Mighty Mouses, (or make it easier to open them and clean) before they just made it wireless.
Also, I'n not a big fan of using batteries in mice. Why not have a wireless mouse that is re-chargable? Or one that you can use wires with if the battery gets low?
well, is it possible that they have fixed the issues, we don't know, so don't make suppositions.
Second, if you don't like batteries, go out and buy some lithium-ion AA batteries, they are pretty cheap and work great.
Also, I'n not a big fan of using batteries in mice. Why not have a wireless mouse that is re-chargable? Or one that you can use wires with if the battery gets low?
well, is it possible that they have fixed the issues, we don't know, so don't make suppositions.
Second, if you don't like batteries, go out and buy some lithium-ion AA batteries, they are pretty cheap and work great.
jeevesofRKdia
Apr 9, 09:17 PM
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/098/e/e/mercedez_heat_iv_apr_2011_by_jasonbeck-d3djojk.jpg
Mercedez on my bathroom counter.
Those are some nice-looking jeans. I have no clue why, but my eyes were drawn there first. :D
Mercedez on my bathroom counter.
Those are some nice-looking jeans. I have no clue why, but my eyes were drawn there first. :D
Westyfield2
May 3, 08:27 AM
Nice upgrade :) ... but I was hoping for an 500GB SSD option :(
Apple's SSDs are always overpriced and slower than third-party ones anyways.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
maybe our day will come soon,
Just seems mental how the iMacs are now on second generation Core i processors, yet the Mini is still on C2D.
Apple's SSDs are always overpriced and slower than third-party ones anyways.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
maybe our day will come soon,
Just seems mental how the iMacs are now on second generation Core i processors, yet the Mini is still on C2D.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий