I agree with you here, touch is to be a large part of OSX Lion.
However, the fact that touch is a significant part of the Lion experience is not compelling evidence for the porting of iOS apps to Mac OSX.
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.
iPad 2 Screen Likely to Have 2048x1536 resolution
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree with you here, touch is to be a large part of OSX Lion.
However, the fact that touch is a significant part of the Lion experience is not compelling evidence for the porting of iOS apps to Mac OSX.
It's evidence that Apple doesn't is lack of multitouch built into old/desktop machines to be a limiting factor.
Steve described the MagicMouse in the Lion keynote as 'A trackpad atop a mouse.'
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
As a company grows bigger, the leaks become more frequent as well.
Full of Win said:
As a company grows bigger, the leaks become more frequent as well.
I keep debating what will be the next push for iPad 2. I own an iPad1 and just recently i stared at the pixels,etc.. Think i'll be less envious of the new iPad than i thought. I just hope they work on the OS alot more...
better screen - ok sure why not
better speaker - eventually it'll be stereo, one speaker on each side
sd card slow - doubt this will happen but if so, ok JB to use SD card as storage
thinner - i like my outrageous battery life
in conclusion, i'm sure it'll be sweet, but i'm saving up for my first mac, more important to me than newer rev iPad.
my 2 cents
better screen - ok sure why not
better speaker - eventually it'll be stereo, one speaker on each side
sd card slow - doubt this will happen but if so, ok JB to use SD card as storage
thinner - i like my outrageous battery life
in conclusion, i'm sure it'll be sweet, but i'm saving up for my first mac, more important to me than newer rev iPad.
my 2 cents
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/1...-and-sd-card-slot-iphone-5-with-a5-processor/
i think they got it from this assuming qualcomm would be making the cpu because they said chipset
You've fixated on the very weakest of arguments here .. yes sure, there are ways to work around the touch issue, but all the other points i made still stand. It's a lot of work to port programs, more work than i think you understand. Take my word for it, i hold a BSc in Artificial Intelligence - porting software is not easy!
Again, sure, touch issue can be worked around .. but 2 resolutions of image do not suggest a Mac App, especially when there are *only* two copies of the image and one is an integer multiple of the each (*exactly* 2 times).
and why would you exclude Tegra from your argument if your entire stance hinged on it? Hell you linked to it!
I agree with you. It won't be easy, but I think with Lion Apple wants to unite Macs and iDevices.
Maybe instead of porting they could run under some sort of emulation layer? Could that work?
No big deal. There have been lots of "promise the stars" rumors that haven't panned out (e.g. G5 Powerbook) and Apple sails on.
shardey is right here .. you've gotten confused. Qualcomm makes the communication systems, i.e. the component that communicates with the cell towers, the part that makes a phone a phone.
The A5 is a system on a chip (SoC) containing the processor, the graphics system, the system memory, etc.
They are physically distinct components.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I think it will be for a lot of consumers. The average person doesn't care about processor speed, etc.
slicecom said:
I think it will be for a lot of consumers. The average person doesn't care about processor speed, etc.
Did you not read that article yourself?It has eight cores. Find me a single core GPU, please.
Besides Tegra2 is an entire chipset, not just a GPU.
Cores are really a misnomer for GPUs, as they are a model of homogenous functional units. The desktop GTX has 512 CUDA cores. That tells you next to nothing (which is in contrast to CPUs, where the number of cores tells you a lot). The reason for this is that what constitutes a GPU core is completely up to the manufacturer. The radeon 6970, which has 1536 cores, is less powerful than the 580. That's why the fact that the Tegra 2 having 8 cores next to the SGX supposedly only having one isn't that helpful. It all matters what one core contains, which is much more arbitrary than a CPU core because it is made up of an arbitrary number of more homogenous units, such as shaders. No need for a myriad of necessary units like a FPU, dispatch, decoder, branch predictor etc like you'd find in a CPU.
If this is true, I will seriously have to consider getting the new one. More pixels are always welcomed. I will give my old one to my brother. 
Sure, but the Mac Mini's don't. And the previous gen of Mac Pro's didn't. iMacs have only had it for one or two (max) revisions, perhaps 2, i've lost count. And there's still a plethora of notebooks out there without it.
Also touch interfaces on Mac and iOS, despite both being touch interfaces, are very different. On iOS it's the only interaction paradigm so you can have things touch only. On OSX touch is a secondary interaction paradigm, so any app ported to it *must* support both.
This is actually not a bad thought. Don't they upcharge for a "Hi-Res" screen in their MBP's as well (I use a 13" MBP, so I didn't have the choice of a different screen)? Maybe they decide to do this with iPad 2, and make the 3G connectivity standard (meaning the cellular radio/GPS chip is in all of the iPads across the line, and you have the option to activate it or not...i.e., no wifi only model). This could be the differentiator for each storage capacity...$499/16Gb low res w/3G, $629/16Gb hi-res w/3G.
Am I the only one who finds it odd that the iPad 2 will have more pixels than my actual computer?
Seriously, they better put a higher pixel density in their monitors. I want a 5120 by 2880 27-inch monitor.
Along with a better GPU to handle it XD
Seriously, they better put a higher pixel density in their monitors. I want a 5120 by 2880 27-inch monitor.
Along with a better GPU to handle it XD
Pixel increase for iPhone/iPod: 960*640 - 480*320 = 460 800 pixels
Purported increase for iPad: 2048*1536 - 1024*768 = 2 359 296 pixels
More than 5x more pixels to drive for the iPad leap.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I can't wait until Macs start shipping with them.
InsanelyApple said:If this is true, I will seriously have to consider getting the new one. More pixels are always welcomed. I will give my old one to my brother.
I can't wait until Macs start shipping with them.
