zekegri
Mar 23, 05:18 PM
If I am sober enough to go through the process and find out where the checkpoints are then I should be able to use the software.
rmhop81
Apr 22, 01:36 PM
The funny part is, no matter what Apple does to make this work, whether its really usable, or totally locked-in-worthless, it doesn't matter.
Streaming will never be as good as audio stored on your device. Not. Ever.
Not on 3G, not on 4G, and not even over WiFi. The software and streaming protocols are way too slow to offer even comparable performance.
I'll stick with syncing/file storage.
you're probably the guy that's mad that apple tv is not 1080p even though content isn't available. lol
have you used airplay? it works awesome.
Streaming will never be as good as audio stored on your device. Not. Ever.
Not on 3G, not on 4G, and not even over WiFi. The software and streaming protocols are way too slow to offer even comparable performance.
I'll stick with syncing/file storage.
you're probably the guy that's mad that apple tv is not 1080p even though content isn't available. lol
have you used airplay? it works awesome.
chopsuey158
Sep 12, 06:27 PM
What does this mean for the long-rumored widescreen ipod? Are they saving the new samsung 120gig drives for that? Will they wait until the hype dies down then hit it hard with the new 6g ipod like last year? Personally I like the updates, better battery, brighter screen, gapless playback(!), more storage. I just don't want to buy this and then have an uber ipod out in a month's time...
Amazing Iceman
Apr 4, 08:56 AM
Just another ploy to scare people into buying there over priced software.
I'm sure Apple takes security very very seriously. Is it me or is McAffee screaming wolf?
Why pay for bloatware, when Sophos is giving it away for free? Then, there's also ClamXAV.
I'm sure Apple takes security very very seriously. Is it me or is McAffee screaming wolf?
Why pay for bloatware, when Sophos is giving it away for free? Then, there's also ClamXAV.
koruki
Apr 19, 03:47 PM
So what? They're already getting sued by Apple, so what's another lawsuit? Point is, contract breach or not, Samsung could cripple Apple's whole ecosystem within days by halting all processor shipments. Apple makes the vast majority on iDevices and this would kill Apple's whole economic model. And this doesn't even account for Samsungs components that go into their Macs. As a result, Apple would have no hardware to sell. They would dip into their treasure chest. It could be devastating to Apple.
Yeah cause a contract breach takes just as long to prove a IP suite. They'd get slapped so fast they wont know what hit them, not to mention other companies would see it as samsung being cowboys for mixing their two business up.
Yeah cause a contract breach takes just as long to prove a IP suite. They'd get slapped so fast they wont know what hit them, not to mention other companies would see it as samsung being cowboys for mixing their two business up.
toddybody
Mar 22, 03:25 PM
Hey. A boy can dream, right?
Remember when Apple put the latest and greatest GPUs in their computers? /looks back to the blue and white G3 keynote
Im with you dude...I see NO reason that apple couldnt pony up for a legitimate GPU. Especially since the 27iMac has alot of pixels to push...heck, the base GPU should have a GB of frame buffer at least. Ahhh, base 6850, 150.00 upgrade gets you a 6950 :D
Remember when Apple put the latest and greatest GPUs in their computers? /looks back to the blue and white G3 keynote
Im with you dude...I see NO reason that apple couldnt pony up for a legitimate GPU. Especially since the 27iMac has alot of pixels to push...heck, the base GPU should have a GB of frame buffer at least. Ahhh, base 6850, 150.00 upgrade gets you a 6950 :D
cvaldes
Mar 22, 02:13 PM
I'm hoping we don't see Apple adopting the HD Intel Graphics, cuz they are going to suck as far as gaming goes..
The current iMacs use discrete ATI Radeon GPUs.
Since the newly released MacBook Pros also include ATI Radeons, it is likely that Apple would continue this trend with the next batch of iMacs.
You needn't worry.
The current iMacs use discrete ATI Radeon GPUs.
Since the newly released MacBook Pros also include ATI Radeons, it is likely that Apple would continue this trend with the next batch of iMacs.
You needn't worry.
slackpacker
Apr 4, 12:38 PM
Obey the law or you may get shot. Rule #1
dsnort
Sep 19, 02:09 PM
Make it 125,001. My wife has been dying to get "Stick It".
Rootus
Apr 15, 08:51 AM
USB 3 will likely become more popular. I hope that doesn't happen. I'd rather have PCI-E speeds than USB speeds.
Perhaps TB will go differently than FW did. Apple has a more significant market share now than they did when FW was introduced. Plus, they're being smart by letting Intel take the lead in promoting TB.
What will make or break TB is peripheral support, and real world performance. Can USB3 keep up with a current SSD, even? If performance is notably degraded with USB3 and the ports both exist on the computer, and the peripherals are the same cost ... TB should do fine.
Personally I'd like to see USB stop at v2. Keep it for a while like we did PS/2 ports for keyboards & mice, but let's roll out modern technology when we can. USB3 hasn't gotten much of a foothold in the two years since it was released, so let's ditch it while we can and go with something much better.
Perhaps TB will go differently than FW did. Apple has a more significant market share now than they did when FW was introduced. Plus, they're being smart by letting Intel take the lead in promoting TB.
What will make or break TB is peripheral support, and real world performance. Can USB3 keep up with a current SSD, even? If performance is notably degraded with USB3 and the ports both exist on the computer, and the peripherals are the same cost ... TB should do fine.
Personally I'd like to see USB stop at v2. Keep it for a while like we did PS/2 ports for keyboards & mice, but let's roll out modern technology when we can. USB3 hasn't gotten much of a foothold in the two years since it was released, so let's ditch it while we can and go with something much better.
WillEH
Apr 25, 08:29 AM
Sounds like he doesn't drive, and just wanted this topic for attention. But I could be wrong..
On the other note. You wonder why insurance for young/new drivers is so high. :rolleyes:
I'm taking my test on the 24th May (UK), my insurance has been quoted to me at �1700.00 for the year. This is because I am male, and 20. So I must be a "racer boy"... I'm not sure what it's like in America. But the reason I get quoted that kind of insurance is because of drivers like you. It's very irresponsible of you to drive like that, and then brag about it. But I don't think it even happened.
On the other note. You wonder why insurance for young/new drivers is so high. :rolleyes:
I'm taking my test on the 24th May (UK), my insurance has been quoted to me at �1700.00 for the year. This is because I am male, and 20. So I must be a "racer boy"... I'm not sure what it's like in America. But the reason I get quoted that kind of insurance is because of drivers like you. It's very irresponsible of you to drive like that, and then brag about it. But I don't think it even happened.
Anonymous Freak
Sep 19, 10:38 PM
Oh God yes this is what I want.
I've read where iTunes 7 supports multiple libraries, but it's not the solution we're waiting for.
I want to rip a CD onto my powerbook and have iTunes sync it with a master library on a partition of my external drive next time I hook it up. Right now, I'd have to remember to copy the new files onto the external... no good—I want it to be automatic and just work (Apple has spoiled me).
It's called 'rsync', and it's one of the BSD utilities built into OS X.
If you either have a really small library, or money to burn (on .Mac and the storage upgrade; but even then, only up to 4 GB,) you could use .Mac as your library storage, and just have Automatic iDisk sync turned on.
edit: I know I saw something about how to trick your computer into thinking another computer on your network is the .Mac server, which would let you use all of the current .Mac functions hosted locally; this would work great for an 'iDisk-hosted' library. As long as you don't ever connect to a different internet connection, and it tries to sync with the real iDisk.
I've read where iTunes 7 supports multiple libraries, but it's not the solution we're waiting for.
I want to rip a CD onto my powerbook and have iTunes sync it with a master library on a partition of my external drive next time I hook it up. Right now, I'd have to remember to copy the new files onto the external... no good—I want it to be automatic and just work (Apple has spoiled me).
It's called 'rsync', and it's one of the BSD utilities built into OS X.
If you either have a really small library, or money to burn (on .Mac and the storage upgrade; but even then, only up to 4 GB,) you could use .Mac as your library storage, and just have Automatic iDisk sync turned on.
edit: I know I saw something about how to trick your computer into thinking another computer on your network is the .Mac server, which would let you use all of the current .Mac functions hosted locally; this would work great for an 'iDisk-hosted' library. As long as you don't ever connect to a different internet connection, and it tries to sync with the real iDisk.
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 14, 09:00 AM
anyway just trying to find an excuse for the iPhone....hehe :D
Count me in...;) I want one bad. I have been holding back on buying a new iPod in wait for the iPhone.
OT: I took a bath with my G4 iPod 40GB. I dont recommend it; bad things happen. :o
Count me in...;) I want one bad. I have been holding back on buying a new iPod in wait for the iPhone.
OT: I took a bath with my G4 iPod 40GB. I dont recommend it; bad things happen. :o
scottgroovez
Apr 25, 02:13 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
2012 is a long way off. Buy now, enjoy it now and sell and upgrade when the time comes. I'm terrible for getting caught in the waiting game. You just wait for eternity.
I'm not sure the pros will lose the DVD drive. It'll encroch into MBA territory and pros are meant more for industry use where the drives are useful.
MBA for casual use. MBP where nothing is compromised.
13 needs a better screen though. I've just bought my first 13 MBP and the soft resolution is a bit disappointing.
2012 is a long way off. Buy now, enjoy it now and sell and upgrade when the time comes. I'm terrible for getting caught in the waiting game. You just wait for eternity.
I'm not sure the pros will lose the DVD drive. It'll encroch into MBA territory and pros are meant more for industry use where the drives are useful.
MBA for casual use. MBP where nothing is compromised.
13 needs a better screen though. I've just bought my first 13 MBP and the soft resolution is a bit disappointing.
Ivan Malagurski
May 4, 12:38 PM
One more amazing Apple product :)
peharri
Sep 18, 07:33 AM
OK. hang on. back the f&6king truck up.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.
Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)
That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)
(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)
Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.
Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?
You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.
Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.
Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)
That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)
(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)
Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.
Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?
You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.
Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.
iMacZealot
Sep 14, 12:01 AM
Its just some kind of 3G and Skype technology, It s not hard to do it. But I think Apple isnt rich enuf to do that in the market.
I think that Apple would make their phone a GSM phone to get more worldwide market rather than releasing it on CDMA. And I doubt they'd throw in 3G on a GSM phone because Cingular's 3G network is not the biggest right now. I think I read that Sprint's PowerVision is the biggest at the moment and still growing. T-Mobile just bought a TON of 3G bandwidth but isn't launching that until next year. So I don't think 3G would be in this phone because we aren't quite there......yet.
As for UMA, I'd be surprised if it didn't have a Wifi card. There are a lot of rumors saying that T-Mobile's launching a giant UMA service, which I wouldn't be surprised with the 7,000 wireless networks they own.
I think that Apple would make their phone a GSM phone to get more worldwide market rather than releasing it on CDMA. And I doubt they'd throw in 3G on a GSM phone because Cingular's 3G network is not the biggest right now. I think I read that Sprint's PowerVision is the biggest at the moment and still growing. T-Mobile just bought a TON of 3G bandwidth but isn't launching that until next year. So I don't think 3G would be in this phone because we aren't quite there......yet.
As for UMA, I'd be surprised if it didn't have a Wifi card. There are a lot of rumors saying that T-Mobile's launching a giant UMA service, which I wouldn't be surprised with the 7,000 wireless networks they own.
spaz
Sep 20, 01:24 PM
Well after 8 pages I'm not sure my 2 cents counts for much, but after buying MY "test movie" last night (the brilliant Romy and Michele's High School Reunion), I have a few observations.
Video Quality: Definitely looks a little soft on my widescreen 34" Sony HDTV, but not really bothersome. I'd argue with those who say you can't tell the difference from a DVD, but then again if you just threw the digital file on, I doubt anyone would complain.
Download speed: I must be lucky, because I got the entire movie in 20 minutes flat on my Cable modem. I don't expect that to be the standard, though.
Audio quality: Granted, this was not Revenge of the Sith, but the audio was totally satisfactory. I listened on headphones to get a better sense and the sound was perfectly fine.
My initial reaction was similar to many, in that I couldnt' imagine why people would want a digital file with no physical media, no artwork, and digital rights management, but I've begun to feel this will gain the same appeal as digital audio has. When iTunes started selling music, I was the first to poo-pooh the concept. I am a rabid music collector and couldn't imagine paying for a product without the jewel case, liner notes, etc... now I buy most of my music from iTunes (most, not all) and I don't regret it. I realized i really didn't WANT to cart around cases and discs when I could just have it all digitally, ready to watch, on my device. It's too early to say the same will happen with movies (which, admittedly, are a different animal) but I can definitely see the possibility of lightning striking twice.
Video Quality: Definitely looks a little soft on my widescreen 34" Sony HDTV, but not really bothersome. I'd argue with those who say you can't tell the difference from a DVD, but then again if you just threw the digital file on, I doubt anyone would complain.
Download speed: I must be lucky, because I got the entire movie in 20 minutes flat on my Cable modem. I don't expect that to be the standard, though.
Audio quality: Granted, this was not Revenge of the Sith, but the audio was totally satisfactory. I listened on headphones to get a better sense and the sound was perfectly fine.
My initial reaction was similar to many, in that I couldnt' imagine why people would want a digital file with no physical media, no artwork, and digital rights management, but I've begun to feel this will gain the same appeal as digital audio has. When iTunes started selling music, I was the first to poo-pooh the concept. I am a rabid music collector and couldn't imagine paying for a product without the jewel case, liner notes, etc... now I buy most of my music from iTunes (most, not all) and I don't regret it. I realized i really didn't WANT to cart around cases and discs when I could just have it all digitally, ready to watch, on my device. It's too early to say the same will happen with movies (which, admittedly, are a different animal) but I can definitely see the possibility of lightning striking twice.
DavidLeblond
Sep 1, 11:38 AM
That would certainly change my mind about getting a 20" iMac. ;)
EDIT: Anyone care to speculate on prices?
EDIT: Anyone care to speculate on prices?
Mr_Ed
Mar 30, 11:42 AM
It seems that App on its own is generic, but the combination with another word to define a particular thing is not... see
Lady + Gaga
Best + Buy
Fack + Book
Micro + Soft
General + Electric
Pintos + Cheese .. okay, maybe not that
You may have a point there, but as long as we are throwing words around I always like to remember how important it is to choose the right words so the intended meaning is conveyed . . .
Micro = Small, Soft = Flaccid
:D
Lady + Gaga
Best + Buy
Fack + Book
Micro + Soft
General + Electric
Pintos + Cheese .. okay, maybe not that
You may have a point there, but as long as we are throwing words around I always like to remember how important it is to choose the right words so the intended meaning is conveyed . . .
Micro = Small, Soft = Flaccid
:D
guet
Nov 13, 05:08 PM
Obviously the images are copyrighted by Apple, and those images they don't want people using. Ok, well, that is their rights, they designed them and copyrighted them.
For the benefit of others who don't bother to read the article, the images in question are provided by a system API on OS X. The API is *provided* to give developers images they can use to represent the current computer, and is supposed to be used that way. All RA have done is used those same images to transmit from the desktop to the iPhone, to show the user which computer they're connecting to.
Some idiot reviewer at Apple has seen the images and decided that since they're displayed on an iPhone they're infringing one of the many incredibly vague rules in the SDK. Given the completely borked review process, it's unlikely to be rectified, and has wasted a lot of everyone's time - there's no way to know in advance which rules the reviewer may decide to impose - almost every app could be seen to infringe one of them. Like the iPhone book app rejection and many others for different obscure reasons, this is a case of a sensible rule interpreted in an insane way.
Can't blame the developers at all for walking away from the frustrating, capricious waste of time which is iTunes store approvals, and good on them for publicising this; taking three months to even give a firm reason for rejection is a real failure on Apple's part, and the entire process is a train wreck.
If Apple doesn't defend their copyright, then they can lose it, so they HAVE to fight for it.
I think you're confusing copyright and Trademarks. This is not the case with copyright at all.
For the benefit of others who don't bother to read the article, the images in question are provided by a system API on OS X. The API is *provided* to give developers images they can use to represent the current computer, and is supposed to be used that way. All RA have done is used those same images to transmit from the desktop to the iPhone, to show the user which computer they're connecting to.
Some idiot reviewer at Apple has seen the images and decided that since they're displayed on an iPhone they're infringing one of the many incredibly vague rules in the SDK. Given the completely borked review process, it's unlikely to be rectified, and has wasted a lot of everyone's time - there's no way to know in advance which rules the reviewer may decide to impose - almost every app could be seen to infringe one of them. Like the iPhone book app rejection and many others for different obscure reasons, this is a case of a sensible rule interpreted in an insane way.
Can't blame the developers at all for walking away from the frustrating, capricious waste of time which is iTunes store approvals, and good on them for publicising this; taking three months to even give a firm reason for rejection is a real failure on Apple's part, and the entire process is a train wreck.
If Apple doesn't defend their copyright, then they can lose it, so they HAVE to fight for it.
I think you're confusing copyright and Trademarks. This is not the case with copyright at all.
pondosinatra
Mar 23, 09:09 AM
Umm, ok. :rolleyes:
Based on your signature you're quite the Apple fan huh?
I bet you think the iPad makes a better e-book reader than the Kindle as well huh?
Based on your signature you're quite the Apple fan huh?
I bet you think the iPad makes a better e-book reader than the Kindle as well huh?
israelagm
Mar 30, 01:24 PM
XP shows them with the same names, but it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. There is no "App Store" in the screenshot.
Shows what with the same names?
And I think it is relevant to the entire discussion. IF they have never used 'applications' in a 'general' or specific way on any type of their OSs then why pick a fight over Apple's use of AppStore, who have been using the term 'Applications' in their OSs and in their ecosystem and brand recognition lingo.
And your right, you don't see an 'App Store' in this screenshot or on any Windows OS or mobile OS.
EDIT: NVM! as noted by logandzwon "Anything ending in .exe will have the same description." Which makes my argument weak and mute.
Shows what with the same names?
And I think it is relevant to the entire discussion. IF they have never used 'applications' in a 'general' or specific way on any type of their OSs then why pick a fight over Apple's use of AppStore, who have been using the term 'Applications' in their OSs and in their ecosystem and brand recognition lingo.
And your right, you don't see an 'App Store' in this screenshot or on any Windows OS or mobile OS.
EDIT: NVM! as noted by logandzwon "Anything ending in .exe will have the same description." Which makes my argument weak and mute.
Eidorian
Sep 9, 02:24 PM
Yes that's right. I always have Activity Monitor on so I can see exactly what's going on with my four cores. I have the sort on the percentage column on the left followed by the application name and then I stick it in the lower right corner of my two screens. By keeping it open I can make sure nothing has crashed.It looks like Activity Monitor is the best approach then. Thanks though!
Well I am 100% certian four is not enough. But I have read there may be diminishing returns beyond 16 perhaps even beyond 8 - I have no idea.We haven't hit that wall yet. ;)
Exactly. A perfect example where one application topping out on only one core leaves the entire other one for other stuff. Probably a good thing to have that limit.
In fact, in future, I could see where application developers let the user in preferences tell the application how many cores to be allowed to use. Give the user a choice of how many cores he/she wants a particular process to use. That would be a way cool improvement in all application preferences.I have to agree. Single or multi core affinity would let you pick and maximize your usage.
Well I am 100% certian four is not enough. But I have read there may be diminishing returns beyond 16 perhaps even beyond 8 - I have no idea.We haven't hit that wall yet. ;)
Exactly. A perfect example where one application topping out on only one core leaves the entire other one for other stuff. Probably a good thing to have that limit.
In fact, in future, I could see where application developers let the user in preferences tell the application how many cores to be allowed to use. Give the user a choice of how many cores he/she wants a particular process to use. That would be a way cool improvement in all application preferences.I have to agree. Single or multi core affinity would let you pick and maximize your usage.
