udontsurf9
Jun 23, 09:02 AM
got my call here in houston, tx. They said it'll be ready at 8:30 Thursday morning
pmz
Apr 6, 10:30 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
I have a 13" ultimate of the current generation. The limiting factor for me is the graphics, not the processor. so going to sandy bridge with the intel 3000 would be a less appealing machine for my uses than the current model. It's really too bad the sandy bridge macs are tied to those garbage integrated graphics.
Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
I have a 13" ultimate of the current generation. The limiting factor for me is the graphics, not the processor. so going to sandy bridge with the intel 3000 would be a less appealing machine for my uses than the current model. It's really too bad the sandy bridge macs are tied to those garbage integrated graphics.
Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
DeathChill
Mar 31, 09:52 PM
No, it's "make up a fake day" day.
Good. I declare it dog moustache day.
Good. I declare it dog moustache day.
rhett7660
Apr 5, 05:19 PM
Problem is, its still Final Cut and will still suck at managing media.
And. You don't know they may have re-done a good chunk of the product to where you have better media managing and it might not even look like FCP as we know it. That of course could be a bad thing or a good thing.
And. You don't know they may have re-done a good chunk of the product to where you have better media managing and it might not even look like FCP as we know it. That of course could be a bad thing or a good thing.
epitaphic
Aug 18, 11:46 PM
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
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
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.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
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 ;).
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
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.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
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.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
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 ;).
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
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.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
ergle2
Sep 13, 01:58 PM
The only limit with Windows is they keep the low end XP home to 2 processors on the same die. There is probably an architectural limit on both OSX and XP and if it's not 8 it's 16. It's probably 8.
There's a bunch of HP Superdome 64-way Itanium systems around running Windows Server mostly for MS SQL work.
Windows XP 64bit is based on the same core. Given the license is per-socket, not per-processor (currently, anyway) and the Pro editions support two sockets, it should in theory support the 8-way setup as described by Anandtech.
Whether it recognises quad-core CPUs as such may of course be a different matter.
There's a bunch of HP Superdome 64-way Itanium systems around running Windows Server mostly for MS SQL work.
Windows XP 64bit is based on the same core. Given the license is per-socket, not per-processor (currently, anyway) and the Pro editions support two sockets, it should in theory support the 8-way setup as described by Anandtech.
Whether it recognises quad-core CPUs as such may of course be a different matter.
mark28
Apr 20, 05:47 AM
Sure, but did Samsung patent it?
It's not about 'who copied who?', but 'who copied after who patented?'
All the corporations mentioned in this thread are dinosaurs and know what type of business they are in. If they fail to patent their (good) ideas than it's a given that someone else eventually will. Doesn't matter whether we or anyone thinks that's right or wrong. It's normal business practice. Any corporation thet develops products in a hot contested market like this and doesn't play this game will lose business or cash.
Samsung didn't stole it from Apple since they were first with the design, end of story.
Samsung can claim Apple stole their design and patent it. That's fraud right since it's not their own idea?
It's not about 'who copied who?', but 'who copied after who patented?'
All the corporations mentioned in this thread are dinosaurs and know what type of business they are in. If they fail to patent their (good) ideas than it's a given that someone else eventually will. Doesn't matter whether we or anyone thinks that's right or wrong. It's normal business practice. Any corporation thet develops products in a hot contested market like this and doesn't play this game will lose business or cash.
Samsung didn't stole it from Apple since they were first with the design, end of story.
Samsung can claim Apple stole their design and patent it. That's fraud right since it's not their own idea?
Bubba Satori
Mar 26, 12:23 PM
Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Yes, as more and more of iOS moves into OS X.
Yes, as more and more of iOS moves into OS X.
monster620ie
Apr 5, 08:57 PM
4K is coming sooner than later. Youtube has 4K media, of course it looks bad because of the YT compression penalty.
4K displays are coming too, both computer monitors and home theater.
are there any 4K tv's out ?
Red Scarlet + 4K tv (how sweet it would be. oh well, I can dream on i guess) :rolleyes:
4K displays are coming too, both computer monitors and home theater.
are there any 4K tv's out ?
Red Scarlet + 4K tv (how sweet it would be. oh well, I can dream on i guess) :rolleyes:
aaronb
Sep 19, 10:58 AM
The fastest?
If that were the case, no one here would be complaining...
Fastest in terms of the fastest notebook that Apple offers.
If that were the case, no one here would be complaining...
Fastest in terms of the fastest notebook that Apple offers.
NY Guitarist
Apr 6, 11:54 AM
What is the obsession with back-lit keys?
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
Yes. I need to see the keyboard. And in a dark room it's critical.
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
Yes. I need to see the keyboard. And in a dark room it's critical.
rezenclowd3
Aug 5, 01:06 PM
I think I will only enjoy the game should I buy a very expensive racing wheel. I already have the seat setup.... a racing game using the standard controller is just odd.
Pre-ordered the US Collectors edition, but now I would like to change that for the UK edition... I am ready to drop my pre-order should the multiplayer review prove lacking, and hopefully they give darn good penalties for hack driving online (DQ, through pit lane etc) Rubbing IS NOT racing! That's for drivers who do not have control of their car.
Pre-ordered the US Collectors edition, but now I would like to change that for the UK edition... I am ready to drop my pre-order should the multiplayer review prove lacking, and hopefully they give darn good penalties for hack driving online (DQ, through pit lane etc) Rubbing IS NOT racing! That's for drivers who do not have control of their car.
bad03xtreme
Apr 19, 01:42 PM
I love to being my night with a good beer.
shamino
Jul 21, 10:07 AM
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!!!!
It really depends on your application.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use.
If you get away from the desktop and look to the server market, however, the picture changes. A web server may only be running one copy of Apache, but it may create a thread for every simultaneous connection. If you have 8 cores, then you can handle 8 times as many connections as a 1-core system can (assuming sufficient memory and I/O bandwidth, of course.) Ditto for database, transaction, and all kinds of other servers. More cores means more simultaneous connections without performance degradation.
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.
It really depends on your application.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use.
If you get away from the desktop and look to the server market, however, the picture changes. A web server may only be running one copy of Apache, but it may create a thread for every simultaneous connection. If you have 8 cores, then you can handle 8 times as many connections as a 1-core system can (assuming sufficient memory and I/O bandwidth, of course.) Ditto for database, transaction, and all kinds of other servers. More cores means more simultaneous connections without performance degradation.
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.
fsck-y dingo
Apr 27, 08:53 AM
for all the tin foil hatters out there, what will happen to the phone performance when the location services are turned off?
Improved battery life. :)
I only activate Locations Services when I feel it's needed. Maps, Star Walk and MLB at Bat are about the only ones that come to mind. I don't keep Location Services turned on all of the time. I switch it on before using one of these. For The Weather Channel and other apps that require a location to function I manually enter it.
I've got the Cydia tweak Untrackerd installed and haven't noticed a slow down with any apps regarding location. I run Speed Test without Location Services and it's quick to choose a nearby server using cell tower info. This is why I don't think the record of previously used towers is needed as much as Apple says. Things work well, and fast enough, without these stored lists.
Improved battery life. :)
I only activate Locations Services when I feel it's needed. Maps, Star Walk and MLB at Bat are about the only ones that come to mind. I don't keep Location Services turned on all of the time. I switch it on before using one of these. For The Weather Channel and other apps that require a location to function I manually enter it.
I've got the Cydia tweak Untrackerd installed and haven't noticed a slow down with any apps regarding location. I run Speed Test without Location Services and it's quick to choose a nearby server using cell tower info. This is why I don't think the record of previously used towers is needed as much as Apple says. Things work well, and fast enough, without these stored lists.
louden
Aug 27, 06:36 PM
IF new MBPs are announced tomorrow
and
IF people who had ordered new MBPs see their ship dates slip
Then wouldn't that signal that prices won't change for the various models from existing prices AND that we shouldn't assume drastic shell changes? Sure they can give us easy access and a magnetic lid, but no options on a glossy screen and no black anodized aluminum.
If I were Apple, I'd hold off on the black aluminum for a few months to get a few of us suckers to buy two of the damn things... Malibu Stacy Marketing 101.
and
IF people who had ordered new MBPs see their ship dates slip
Then wouldn't that signal that prices won't change for the various models from existing prices AND that we shouldn't assume drastic shell changes? Sure they can give us easy access and a magnetic lid, but no options on a glossy screen and no black anodized aluminum.
If I were Apple, I'd hold off on the black aluminum for a few months to get a few of us suckers to buy two of the damn things... Malibu Stacy Marketing 101.
LagunaSol
Apr 12, 11:33 PM
I personally wouldn't recommend people buy a subsidized phone, but people are price sensitive. YMMV. :(
You're going to be paying for a data plan anyway, so why not make some of that money back in a subsidy?
You're going to be paying for a data plan anyway, so why not make some of that money back in a subsidy?
steve knight
Mar 18, 12:50 AM
Ron Paul is a Christian nutjob. a squirrels wet dream.
He wants a small government small enough to fit in the bedroom and between a woman's legs. I love the small govement thing but then there are all these things government should control.
Megan Fox Wears False
He wants a small government small enough to fit in the bedroom and between a woman's legs. I love the small govement thing but then there are all these things government should control.
Georgie
Aug 26, 02:55 PM
Dude. You bought Rev. A machines. I've bought -- EIGHTEEN Macs over the past two years and -- nope NO problems. Granted, they are all PowerPc Macs. Just bought the final Rev. PowerPC 12" Powerbook G4 last week. I'm pleased as punch.
Sorry about your luck but you bought Rev. A machines. The only Rev A machine I ever bought from Apple was the Titanium (tibook) 400mhz G4 Powerbook in August of 2001. Three years later, almost to the day the warranty ended, Apple replaced almost the whole machine under Applecare. That was about my only trouble with Apple, and the problem with the machine was that I was really scared and all thumbs when it came to putting in a stick of memory -- broke the holders and they sent a whole new logic board. That machine is still going strong, with a DayStar CPU upgrade, in a friend's office, and it's got years left in her.
Three of my friends still are on 1998 and 1999 iMacs, going strong with new harddrives only. Two of my other friends are on 2001 and 2000 year iMacs -- one with the same hard drive. Two friends are on 2001/2000 iBooks, going strong. My sister and two other friends are on year 2002 iMacs. All kicking butt. Personally, I prefer my year 2002 667mhz VGA Titanium Powerbook (on it right now) to my other machines and will be upgrading the CPU to 1.2ghz in a few months at Daystar. All to say that Apple makes kickbutt machines. Sorry about your luck. Oh, and again, forgot to mention that since i've been on Apple since 1989, I never had a virus. I bought NOrton Anti Virus out of ignorance once inthe 90's and once in but promptly took it off the puters, unnecessary.
If I were you, I'd have started off with the top of the line G5 2.1ghz 20" iMac (with iSight) and a 14" 1.42ghz iBook. You understand, these are the top of the line of the great PowerPC line of Apple products. It's like buying a 1989 560SL Mercedes (last year) or a 1968 Mustang convertible. I'd ask Apple for a trade 'em in for your rev a machines at least until Rev C Mactels.
Ohhh, Rev A!
I guess I wasn't watching carefully or listening intently when they explained that part in the commercials. Did anyone else hear Mac-dude explain that I would be buying a "Rev A" product and should expect it to fail within three months? Maybe that's what he was saying in Japanese with Camera-chick.
This "Rev A" excuse doesn't hold water. See, had I known that I might not have bought a Mac at all. And if it's true I should expect my $2000 to buy a broken toaster then I also expect Apple to replace it, not make up excuses. As far as that goes, they should pay me to QC their products.
Sorry about your luck but you bought Rev. A machines. The only Rev A machine I ever bought from Apple was the Titanium (tibook) 400mhz G4 Powerbook in August of 2001. Three years later, almost to the day the warranty ended, Apple replaced almost the whole machine under Applecare. That was about my only trouble with Apple, and the problem with the machine was that I was really scared and all thumbs when it came to putting in a stick of memory -- broke the holders and they sent a whole new logic board. That machine is still going strong, with a DayStar CPU upgrade, in a friend's office, and it's got years left in her.
Three of my friends still are on 1998 and 1999 iMacs, going strong with new harddrives only. Two of my other friends are on 2001 and 2000 year iMacs -- one with the same hard drive. Two friends are on 2001/2000 iBooks, going strong. My sister and two other friends are on year 2002 iMacs. All kicking butt. Personally, I prefer my year 2002 667mhz VGA Titanium Powerbook (on it right now) to my other machines and will be upgrading the CPU to 1.2ghz in a few months at Daystar. All to say that Apple makes kickbutt machines. Sorry about your luck. Oh, and again, forgot to mention that since i've been on Apple since 1989, I never had a virus. I bought NOrton Anti Virus out of ignorance once inthe 90's and once in but promptly took it off the puters, unnecessary.
If I were you, I'd have started off with the top of the line G5 2.1ghz 20" iMac (with iSight) and a 14" 1.42ghz iBook. You understand, these are the top of the line of the great PowerPC line of Apple products. It's like buying a 1989 560SL Mercedes (last year) or a 1968 Mustang convertible. I'd ask Apple for a trade 'em in for your rev a machines at least until Rev C Mactels.
Ohhh, Rev A!
I guess I wasn't watching carefully or listening intently when they explained that part in the commercials. Did anyone else hear Mac-dude explain that I would be buying a "Rev A" product and should expect it to fail within three months? Maybe that's what he was saying in Japanese with Camera-chick.
This "Rev A" excuse doesn't hold water. See, had I known that I might not have bought a Mac at all. And if it's true I should expect my $2000 to buy a broken toaster then I also expect Apple to replace it, not make up excuses. As far as that goes, they should pay me to QC their products.
JMax1
Nov 28, 06:43 PM
"It would be a nice idea."
What does that mean? I have lots of nice ideas for getting money when I didn't do anything.
By this logic, shouldn't Universal also get royalties for every CD player, Cassette player, and radio sold?
Might as well cash in on the giant cash cow that is the iPod :rolleyes:
What does that mean? I have lots of nice ideas for getting money when I didn't do anything.
By this logic, shouldn't Universal also get royalties for every CD player, Cassette player, and radio sold?
Might as well cash in on the giant cash cow that is the iPod :rolleyes:
Pressure
Sep 19, 08:57 AM
So this was a bad time to order a 15.4" MacBook Pro 2.16Ghz, 100GB harddrive, 1GB ram with 256MB VRAM? :p
Tones2
Apr 19, 01:33 PM
I'm sure quite sure what Apple hopes to accomplish here. Every smart phone steals from every other one. I don't know if you can differentiate design "concepts". It's like suing someone because the chords for his blues song goes in a 1-4-5 pattern like yours does. It's just part of the genre.
Tony
Tony
ergle2
Sep 20, 01:50 PM
No, one that just ignores you and your inquiries because it was already clear where you were coming from..thus I feel no obligation to engage you in my thought process and your self important questioning. Has nothing to do with my maturity, and everything to do with my lack of caring about you or your opinion.
Ah, a response that is pompous, imperious, petulant, inconsistent AND incorrect -- you didn't ignore me, after all, you were simply obnoxious and evasive with a serious of ridiculous replies.
Nice projection with the "self-important", though.
Where I was coming from was purely from a sense of curiosity as to why someone would apparently feel that technology can advance too quickly. It's not unobvious, I grant you, but a rather unobjectionable query to my mind.
Interestingly, it would appear you do care enough about my opinion - or perhaps that of other forum denizens? - to respond in a way you apparently consider to be "clever". Feel free to ignore me -- really, I can take it! I mean, I'm sure I'll probably suffer a couple of seconds of heartbreak sometime around, say, 2020, but I'll survive.
Oh and "thought process" - ROTFL - lovely!
Ah, a response that is pompous, imperious, petulant, inconsistent AND incorrect -- you didn't ignore me, after all, you were simply obnoxious and evasive with a serious of ridiculous replies.
Nice projection with the "self-important", though.
Where I was coming from was purely from a sense of curiosity as to why someone would apparently feel that technology can advance too quickly. It's not unobvious, I grant you, but a rather unobjectionable query to my mind.
Interestingly, it would appear you do care enough about my opinion - or perhaps that of other forum denizens? - to respond in a way you apparently consider to be "clever". Feel free to ignore me -- really, I can take it! I mean, I'm sure I'll probably suffer a couple of seconds of heartbreak sometime around, say, 2020, but I'll survive.
Oh and "thought process" - ROTFL - lovely!
satty
Jul 20, 08:38 AM
Not that I wouldn't mind more processing power :D ...
but to me it doesn't make much sense for the majority of tasks/applications.
There might be rare exceptions in the professinal area and of course it makes lots of sense for a server, but for a single user machine?
Whatever, bring them on... in this case I like to be proven wrong.
but to me it doesn't make much sense for the majority of tasks/applications.
There might be rare exceptions in the professinal area and of course it makes lots of sense for a server, but for a single user machine?
Whatever, bring them on... in this case I like to be proven wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment