My point is that core 2 duos are supported by mavericks to run OSX. That suggests that ARM has become powerful enough to actually run OSX well enough to do simple things like check email and search the web, which is about the limit of what you can do on ios anyway. No one is suggesting that you're going to be rendering your next full feature film in an ARM chip.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Analyst Predicts 'iAnywhere' OS X and iOS Combo Platform Despite Apple's Public Dismissal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My point is that core 2 duos are supported by mavericks to run OSX. That suggests that ARM has become powerful enough to actually run OSX well enough to do simple things like check email and search the web, which is about the limit of what you can do on ios anyway. No one is suggesting that you're going to be rendering your next full feature film in an ARM chip.
I agree, but it could be other things than memory management that are causing it to be slower. I'm pretty sure Mountain Lion had similar memory management (i.e. appear to use most of it when it's really just caching) and certainly Mountain Lion 10.8.5 felt every bit as fast as Snow Leopard did hear. I agree Mavericks seems to be missing something (not really noticeable on my Quad-Core i7 Mac Mini, but it's definitely more noticeable on my 2008 Macbook Pro. A lot of slowness went away when I disabled hard drive sleeping, though on the laptop, but it's still slower than Mountain Lion. I've heard unofficially that 10.9.2 fixes a lot of bugs and speeds things up quite a bit so hopefully they have caught Mavericks up to Mountain Lion's final in those regards. Since they were developed concurrently, I think some things weren't passed back and forth immediately in the code base or something. In any case, I think they'll eventually iron it out. The BAD part is that they'll start the crap all over again with 10.10.0 and according to their once a year schedule, you can expect that before the end of this year. Imagine going through this BS every year. I'd like more stability, but then I HAD to have those multiple monitor + full screen improvements. Those were a godsend, especially on the Mini as I can finally use two monitors effectively (though I still think both monitors need a dock).
I've assumed the 2008 MBP is slower due to the older 2-core processor more so than the difference in RAM here. Yeah, once you start multi-tasking big time more ram is going to help a lot, but the slowness I notice is not really running much of anything, just slow to bring windows to the front, etc. that should be instant. I can't add any more ram to this model so if it is a RAM issue I can't do anything about it except go back to Mountain Lion.
My 2008 MBP I'm typing on right now (away from home) still uses a Core2Duo thank you very much. Geeze, it's not some ancient Pentium III. It really depends on what you're doing and so long as mobile devices are at that speed range, the "crap" that slows the Internet down won't move too far along or everyone's phone would be crappy browsing. Logic Pro still runs good even in Mavericks, Office, etc. run fine. Really, other than Handbrake and some newer games, I hardly notice. An SSD would perk the internal drive speed up a lot, but I still get 120MB/sec with the 7200 RPM Hitachi I installed four years ago). That's similar to a USB3 conventional drive. My RAID0 conventional drives get 325MB/sec on my Mini though running only 5200 RPM 1TB 2.5" drives. Obviously, you can get 2-3x that with an SSD now, but the price per MB is SO much higher and media doesn't need it. I've been using XBMC on this trip as much as anything else so having 500GB on-board is helpful (you can get 1TB now on 2.5"). I've even got USB3 on this MBP thanks to its expansion port (something 2009-2011 MBPs do not have save the last 17" models).
Last edited:
A company already did something like this turning their smartphone into the brains of an OS by docking it into a laptop. I think it was ASUS who pulled this off: http://www.gizmag.com/asus-padfone-43-inch-smartphone-docks-inside-101-inch-tablet/18760/
Motorola did this: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/mobile-news/clambook-turn-your-smartphone-into-a-laptop/8114
What I don't want Apple is getting the idea to attempt to create a Mac or device to have the OS and apps be entirely cloud based. I would not trust doing the work on grid like Adobe's Creative Cloud.
But using the phone or iPad as the brains behind the PC OS as a hybrid is not a bad idea even though they have the iCloud in tandem with iWork and other apps.
Let's converge so that we can always have access to our data which means being able to run any of my apps no matter which hardware thus the OS should converge so the devices converge.
iCloud is a kludge. Too much of the time one does not have access to cell/internet and often there are high costs (cell networks) or slow speeds (aDSL) that make it useless.
iCloud is a kludge. Too much of the time one does not have access to cell/internet and often there are high costs (cell networks) or slow speeds (aDSL) that make it useless.
I sure hope not! iOS is made for "fun", iOS7 doesn't even comes near the functionality that of Maverick. There is a significant difference, still, between a desktop computer and wearable devices such as iPhones/Pods/Pads.
People who think iOS is close to a level that it could take-over Maverick don't have a clue what professionals demand within a system that's capable using both third party software & hardware. To keep it simple, you can't render Toy Story 6 on an iPhone.
I think Apple has done a great job in already integrating iOS features within the current Maverick system. When I'm working I'm in no need to get all the funny gadgets from a phone within my working system. I'll keep them separate, so does Apple.
You just described typical VNC. I would imagine the other way around, sort of like iOS in the Car.
huh ?? I'm confussed already,,, Think of a better name...
This has least of all to indicate a hybrid style (something by the way Apple was dead set against)
Tim can change his mind, but Steve had a further goal...
http://www.asus.com/in-search-of-incredible/us-en/asus-transformer-book-trio/
This has least of all to indicate a hybrid style (something by the way Apple was dead set against)
Tim can change his mind, but Steve had a further goal...
http://www.asus.com/in-search-of-incredible/us-en/asus-transformer-book-trio/
There is a real lack of respect for differing opinions these days and frankly, it's the cause of most global problems like war when taken to the extreme. I, for one, don't log on here to read someone calling anyone a blanking idiot, especially when it's obvious they don't know what Apple will do with certainty any more than the people they're talking about. It just looks BAD and IMO warrants a ban as much as if someone called another member one.
Your basic point was that the recession was caused by governments pursuing a policy of low interest rates.
I just pointed out that Canada did the same thing and yet the Canadian banks did not collapse. If your points were true, the Canadian economy would have suffered the same fate as the American economy.
Australia is another good example. Australia's banks survived because of good regulations. Australia was also following the same policy of low interest rates. Since Australia's economy is far less dependant on the US economy, Australia did not even enter a recession.
I proved your points wrong by using the scientific method. Economists and political scientists use it to judge the viability of a theory by using real world examples. The real world tells us that the Canadian and Australian approach prevented the economy catastrophe that hit Europe and the United States.
Now regarding your analogy, it does not work. In casinos there is individual liability. When a person enters a casino and gambles he/she is putting his/her own money on the line and if he loses everything, he/she is the only person who is liable. (Little more complicated if the person has a family).
Banks are very different.
First, had the banks gone bankrupt, the people actually running the bank would not have been liable. The banks were corporations and the directors and shareholders would be protected by a corporate liability shield. This shield protects the bankers of the corporation from debts and losses incurred by the corporation. The moral hazard argument is moot. There is no personal implications to the bankers in the first place.
Second, the bank itself would have been liable. According to American law, corporations are "people". They are fictional persons and if a corporation went bankrupt, only the assets of the corporation are on the line. The only asset which a bank has access to is the money which the depositors put in the bank. Effectively, the average American would have been liable for the risks taken by Wall Street.
Effectively the bankers were getting rich by gambling with other people's money, and those very same people would have lost every penny when the banks went bankrupt, while the bankers would have gotten significantly richer without taking any real risk.
This is why we need regulations. Bankers have every incentive to take risk, and no disincentive to avoid taking unreasonable risks. Other people are liable for the losses of a bank, while the bankers themselves get significantly richer.
Making the wild speculations of an analyst, I'm going to say plausible. Only when I can pull an ultra thin "dumb" laptop out of my bag that will run a full featured OS from the phone in my pocket. So fully capable phone with a laptop-ish monitor/keyboard/touchpad connecting via bluetooth/airplay.
Some day...
Some day...
Sharing sucks
I dunno about you, but I always plug my iPhone in anyhow, to charge. And why "share" or "sync" data (except to backup)? Just take your computer and its data with you everywhere you go, in your pocket.
I dunno about you, but I always plug my iPhone in anyhow, to charge. And why "share" or "sync" data (except to backup)? Just take your computer and its data with you everywhere you go, in your pocket.
Lowering interest rates was one of the contributing factors that caused the financial crisis. It was not the sole cause. The Canadian banks didn't suffer the same fate as the United States because the Canadians weren't stupid enough to have government organizations (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) buying mortgages that banks originated and didn't want anymore. What bank would care if the borrower had the capacity to pay them back, If the government was just going to buy that loan off their hands anyways? This is not a lack of regulation, this is a complete over reach of government involvement in the financial market. That's why American banks (mainly the large ones that new they would get bailed out if they werent able to get those bad loans off their books before the fit hit the shan) took these kinds of risks, and the Canadian ones didnt take nearly as many. The same goes for Australia.
The European Union is ridden with excessive regulation, taxation, bureaucracy and debt. Those are the underlying causes of it's financial crisis. The catalysts that caused the first few dominoes the fall, and the inevitable process to be set in motion are not very relevant.
I used the analogy to point out the fact that if you have consequences for the risks you take then you are much more calculated in the risks you take. If banks were not bailed out, after they behaved recklessly then the reckless behavior would stop. The system would be allowed. Once we returned to a normal financial environment, the individuals managing money at these institutions would need to weigh the risks of their operations much more consciously, instead of simply originating loans to people who couldn't prove they had a job, or who claimed to be a landscaper making over a million a year etc., and then handing the loan off to Fannie or Freddie and collecting the commission. The executives dont need to have their own money in the scenario for the analogy to apply. They have a reputation to hold, there could be clawback clauses in their contracts to prevent them from short term booms that lead to busts and encourage sustainability, and its not like the goal of running a business is to make sure youre as reckless as possible to make sure it goes bankrupt as quickly as possible. Lets be real here.
But in a free market, who cares what the banks do with the money? Ill tell you who should care; The stakeholders, and the depositors. Period. If you don't care enough to look at a few simple evaluations as to the financial prudence of the institution to which you are about to entrust your money, then don't come crying to me if it goes bust. I dont wanna hear it. Take some responsibility for yourself. In a free market environment, especially one that has the almost seamless level of global communications that we enjoy today, rating agencies would be allowed to form and independently verify the financials of each bank, and break down the level of risk into terms that the average person could understand i.e. 1-10 or A-F etc.
When people start caring about what their bank does with their money, that will become a very significant factor to the way banks are run. If a bank begins acting recklessly, then rating agencies would begin downgrading that bank. Depositors would then demand a higher rate of interest for depositing their money there. If the bank didn't pay those higher rates, then the depositors would withdraw their at that particular institution, and the institution would be forced to become more conservative, or it would fail and go away, and the bankers would have no money with which to take risk anymore. Simple.
This system fails when depositors stop caring about what their bank does with their money because the FDIC insures their account to a limit higher than the amount they have on deposit Its obvious how reckless behavior can easily manifest itself in an environment such as this, because its effectively NOT the depositors money, its the governments (all of our) money. Again, this is not a problem of insufficient regulation, this is a problem of government involvement and distortion.
Upon Americas founding, there were a good 120-130 years of almost pure free market capitalism, and we saw the most extraordinary growth the world has ever seen. We became the wealthiest nation in the world in BY FAR the shortest amount of time, and that wealth creation occurred in a regulatory environment that was almost non existent. If you want to fix the problems we have then get the hacks in Washington out of the equation and let the market regulate itself, completely uninfluenced by the force, and inherent distortion therein, of the government.