Not to hijack, but, just let the Blackberry go. I have had 5 or so blackberries over the years--I've even developed on it--it sucks.
Get an iPhone. Sure, you'll say "but the typing..." but you are 10x to 1 pulling information out rather than putting information in and for that the iPhone is 1000x better.
6 people who work for me all had blackberries and one by one switched--none of them ever looked back.
For me, the change came when, on day one, I brought my wife an iPhone but couldn't give up my blackberry. Day after day I found myself saying "Can I use your phone to check the stocks... the news... the weather... use your browser..." Once I switched--I've never regretted it once--and can't honestly see going to any other phone.
Microsoft invited me to a special event where they were showing their developments on their phone with their Windows Mobile OS and my only thought was "they are so out of touch and so far behind..."
Stop thinking. Just get an iPhone.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled thread
I just wish they got their shit together already... they need to come up with a system that can be applied down the line for chips with more cores.
Or I might have to get a 4.0GHz quad on a mineral bath with two massive 3 x 120mm fan radiators going...
I think the best bet might be to make NLEs be GPU intensive... that way you can swap, add upgrade much more often and easier. Get four Quadros going or finally get your first. But it will never happen. Also, we won't go much higher in CPU frequencies than 4GHz cause there is no point... about 5GHz it starts to be a real big issue still. What we will see is Octo Cores... so we need to wait for enough people to develop their software so that the rest has to catch up.
PeterI just wish they got their shit together already... they need to come up with a system that can be applied down the line for chips with more cores.
Or I might have to get a 4.0GHz quad on a mineral bath with two massive 3 x 120mm fan radiators going...
I think the best bet might be to make NLEs be GPU intensive... that way you can swap, add upgrade much more often and easier. Get four Quadros going or finally get your first. But it will never happen. Also, we won't go much higher in CPU frequencies than 4GHz cause there is no point... about 5GHz it starts to be a real big issue still. What we will see is Octo Cores... so we need to wait for enough people to develop their software so that the rest has to catch up.
What I'm really saying is that software makers in general have become accustomed to computers just routinely getting faster and that requires very little, if any, changes to their code base to see speed benefits over time. The software industry has been getting a lot of mixed signals from the chip makers over the past few years too. Two years ago, Intel and AMD both were pushing multi-core software development paradigms. They were telling everyone that increases in CPU MHz was at an end until far superior manufacturing methods can be developed, the x86 architecture was as efficient as it was going to get, blah, blah, blah... From there on out speed increases would be realized by stacking more processor "cores" onto a single CPU die. Product roadmaps were showing 16 and 32 core models for 2010 with an eventual progression to about 70 to 80 cores as both chip makers felt that would be the upper limit. Developers didn't jump on that because a great many of them just did not know where to begin. No compiler support or hardware platforms to test on. Developing an application that scales well across 2 or 4 CPUs is vastly different than one that is entirely nodal or cellular in nature that can scale across 50+ CPUs. Not to mention, the software industry is largely reactive and not proactive. They develop for the new hardware that has just hit the market or the hardware that they can get early versions of to work on. They don't develop new applications or large scale re-writes for hypothetical hardware that has not even been demonstrated yet.
