Star World Famous Model Blog's

It's ony a problem if the customer can't tell the Samsung is not an Apple device at point of sale.

As for the tablets, I think it'd be pretty hard to confuse a Tab with an iPad, or think that the Tab is made by Apple.



Is it obvious it's not licensed by Apple, though?


In either case, Apple could have to come up with proof that normal consumers are actually confused between the products.


No they wouldn't. They have to prove likelihood of confusion, not actual confusion. Actual confusion is evidence of likelihood of confusion, but it's not necessary.

I hope that number keeps rising; we need competition to not let Apple rest on it's laurels.

As someone who likes his Apple products, part of me laughs seeing numbers like this for the Xoom, but the other part thinks the same thing you post above--that Apple needs to have a successful competitor in the space to keep Apple's progress from stagnating. More competition will make them take bigger steps more quickly.

"Lying" implies intent. Are you accusing them of lying, or getting it wrong?

OMG. They definitely lied.

Just like Clinton.

They looked right into the camera and lied to the world.

Only their lies had more at stake than some blowjobs.

Then it sure doesn't apply to all models then if the trade dress claim is an AND'd combination. If the trade dress claim only applicable to certain models in the ones listed in the complaint ?

The trade dress claims do not list specific models.

Specific models ARE shown for illustration purposes in the background portion of the document, however.

With all these new technologies with 4, 8 and eventually 24-core capacities (some time in the not too distant future) all running at 64-bit, we musn't forget that software also has tobe developed for these machienes in order to get the most out of the hardware. At the moment we aren't even maximising core-duo, let alone a quad core and all the rest!!!!

Besides, for 90% of what non-pro users do, these advances will help very little. Internet will still run at the same spead and my ipod will still chug along with USB2 etc.

Pros with pro apps acn rejoice, only if software keeps the pace!!!

Let's hope so!!!

The nec-plus-ultra would be thinking of a result and getting it (or saying it to your computer) like a photoshop user going: "Well, I would like the sun being more dominant in that picture, the power lines removed, and make those persons look younger". Boom. It happens.

<offtopic>
That would require Artificial Intelligence. If a computer can understand your speech, recognise your choice of words and understands that you don't neccessarily mean what you say all the time, then that's AI. If it can recognise specific objects in an "analogue" media such as a photograph, (I don't care if its a digital photo or not), it's AI. If it can then implement what it has learned alongside its infinite computational precision to remake a photo, while keeping it completely realistic, and making it look exactly how we wanted it to look, that's amazing, and lots of people will be out of jobs.

But if you have an AI system working for you, what's the point of working? ;)

BTW, I mean proper "hard" AI, not some pathetic "Ooh, forom your phone number you must live there, therefore I'll direct you to that Pizza Hut outlet! Aren't I smart!" type of AI.

<rant>
Erasmus 4 AI, Nuclear Power, GM, Stem Cell Research, and every other form of Science and Technology. Our lives will only benefit from all these, as will our community and our planet.
</rant>
</offtopic>

Don't Hurt Me.

I have to ask again, even though others already have, is Kentsfield a drop-in replacement for Conroe, if either a Mid-Tower or the iMac get Conroe? (Or Cloverton or whatever the desktop one is)

Still hanging out for WWDC2006.

At least GT6 is already underway. (http://www.1up.com/news/gran-turismo-6-development-underway) (old news, but throwing it out there for those that don't know)

hmmm... the funny part is that it's been done to death.* that's the bit.* i guess you don't see it as funny.* ever heard of a reoccuring joke with a little aphormism mixed in?


All your Powerbook G5's are belong to us

Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac.

It may be obvious, but based on your earlier statement that a Conroe iMac would be "able to crunch through" apps faster than a Mac Pro, the obvious seemed worth identifying.

But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.

So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta

Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
*snip*
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.

And how does it fare in memory latency?
*snip*

Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.

As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))

I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.

I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).

Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))

I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.

Note: I believe I accidentally merged someone's (possibly a couple of people's) posts into BWhaler's post (3 above this post). Sorry. :o

jsw, thanks for merging my postings.

Didn't mean to spam the thread. (Just wasn't thinking...)

I'm not trolling, this is an honest question. But isn't a Final Cut pretty much worthless for commercial use without a way to put the results on Blu-Ray?

There are many ways of delivering content other than BluRay. But if one insists, there is a rudimentary BluRay output currently in FCP. Or burn with Toast. Or author in anything from Adobe Encore to high-end PC-based BluRay authoring systems.

While I accept that you are not acting the troll, you do need to learn a bit more about the video/film world.

The mermon G5s should be out before summer.

So this was a bad time to order a 15.4" MacBook Pro 2.16Ghz, 100GB harddrive, 1GB ram with 256MB VRAM? :p

A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet.

Not true, according to the article. They said it wasn't easy, but they were able to max out all 8 cores. You can see the Activity Monitor graph all filled up.

It would be nice if 10.5 would allow a more 'blind' method to utilize these cores, versus having programmers specificly program for multi-core. Now that would be extremely helpful and allow a more simultanous workflow.

That's how it is now, at least with multiple apps. I bet it's possible to program for an unspecified number of multiple cores, and there may be apps doing it already.

I was interested to see that they were unable to max out CPU utilization on all 8 cores in the system. I hope it's due to the software these days not being ready to fully utilize more than one or two cores and not due to OSX's ability to scale to larger core counts. Since that's obviously where we're heading. Does anyone know about the potential for scalability of OSX to large numbers of CPU's/cores? I know some *nix varieties and BSD varieties do this really well, but one wonders if they were thinking this far in the future when they developed OSX. It'll be interesting to see...

Read the article again, they WERE able to max them out, just not easily. Based on that, OSX seems to be able to scale already. Developers just need to start writing apps that are more MP friendly.