Bakey
Apr 5, 06:09 PM
A very ignorant post. Especially if you value quality. I hardly call providing the best quality video "sucking money out of home consumers"
Or are you one of those that want to insist that streaming "hd" video is just as good as blu-ray. Because if you are - you shouldn't have even weighed in here.
No need to school you on the difference here though unless you come back and tell me you still think there's no difference.
+1... Maybe I should've snipped the quote, but I couldn't agree more! :)
Or are you one of those that want to insist that streaming "hd" video is just as good as blu-ray. Because if you are - you shouldn't have even weighed in here.
No need to school you on the difference here though unless you come back and tell me you still think there's no difference.
+1... Maybe I should've snipped the quote, but I couldn't agree more! :)
freezerburrn
Sep 13, 01:50 PM
After reading the Anandtech article, I'm curious to know how much of a concern the FBD memory latency is to some of you, seeing that the Core 2 extreme came out on top in many of the benchmark tests.
~Shard~
Jul 14, 02:42 PM
Appleinsider is saying that it can be used for both at your choice, but you have to go buy it and put it in. Not a add on to ordering.
Odd, you think Apple would at least give you the option at the online Store, just as they do with 2 displays... But, perhaps one optival drive will indeed come standard, and the other will be available for whatever the person wants.
Or perhaps there will not be 2 optical drives to begin with. :o ;) :cool:
Odd, you think Apple would at least give you the option at the online Store, just as they do with 2 displays... But, perhaps one optival drive will indeed come standard, and the other will be available for whatever the person wants.
Or perhaps there will not be 2 optical drives to begin with. :o ;) :cool:
Yannick
Sep 19, 04:33 AM
An update isn't going to make me go out and by a macbook or macbook pro. I'm waiting for leopard.
This is quite about how I feel. Waiting for Leopard and the following MacBook Pro revision, meaning waiting summer 2007. Then I would try to sell my PB G4 and buy a MacBook Pro. But I guess that if the MacBook Pro would get a very good update in the next weeks, I could be tempted for Christmas� :D
This is quite about how I feel. Waiting for Leopard and the following MacBook Pro revision, meaning waiting summer 2007. Then I would try to sell my PB G4 and buy a MacBook Pro. But I guess that if the MacBook Pro would get a very good update in the next weeks, I could be tempted for Christmas� :D
hyperpasta
Aug 5, 07:51 PM
To me the answer to the whole IR/Mac Pro/Front Row thing is obvious - put an integrated IR receiver into the keyboard. The keyboard would come with the Mac Pro (unlike the display) and is rarely under the desk. :)
Plus they could sell the keyboard for any Mac (including ones that don't have Front Row - they could include the app with it).
Wow. Why didn't I think of that?
Well, regardless, I still think a Cinema Display update is badly needed, and if not alongside new pro towers.... when?
Plus they could sell the keyboard for any Mac (including ones that don't have Front Row - they could include the app with it).
Wow. Why didn't I think of that?
Well, regardless, I still think a Cinema Display update is badly needed, and if not alongside new pro towers.... when?
Ahheck01
Apr 5, 06:40 PM
++, finally!
I'm hoping they sell it on the App store. I prefer the licensing management and model on there. (Although 50GB might be a problem!!)
4GB download with in-app purchases for content would be my guess.
I'm hoping they sell it on the App store. I prefer the licensing management and model on there. (Although 50GB might be a problem!!)
4GB download with in-app purchases for content would be my guess.
AppleScruff1
Apr 19, 10:31 PM
It does not matter that it was not US company as long as they were registered in US. Remember Apple suing Australian supermarket chain company for using as their log letter W which slightly resembled an apple?
I totally forgot about that! What a joke. Apple has become the king of hypocrites. And they copied the Apple logo from the Beatle's Apple Records.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Apple-Woolworths-logo-lawsuit,8784.html
http://gizmodo.com/#!5374027/deja-vu-apple-sues-someone-because-their-logo-looks-like-fruit
http://www.theage.com.au/business/apple-bites-over-woolworths-logo-20091005-ghzr.html
I totally forgot about that! What a joke. Apple has become the king of hypocrites. And they copied the Apple logo from the Beatle's Apple Records.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Apple-Woolworths-logo-lawsuit,8784.html
http://gizmodo.com/#!5374027/deja-vu-apple-sues-someone-because-their-logo-looks-like-fruit
http://www.theage.com.au/business/apple-bites-over-woolworths-logo-20091005-ghzr.html
ergle2
Sep 14, 01:17 PM
True (today anyway; in the NT era they were indeed separate platforms though. Which brings me to my next point..)
Point of total (and obnoxious) pedantry here -- XP and W2K3 Server aren't strictly the same codebase; The latter was a huge rewrite job with some fairly significant internal changes.
XP 64bit is based on W2K3, and Vista originally started out on the XP code base and then was scrapped, and was started over using the W2K3 codebase.
It doesn't invalidate your point in any way and the latter is most definitely descended from the former, but unlike previous products they weren't released in parallel. I mention it purely because I find it interesting, and it's also an example of how Windows is "evolving", so to speak.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
This is very common on both sides of the divide. Many Mac-only people seem to think Windows is still stuck in the Win9x days, and many of the Windows-only types seem to think MacOS is still in the 8.x days.
I guess it's a little like when your friend has kids and you don't see them for a few years, and you're surprised that instead of still being little kids they're teenagers... :)
Point of total (and obnoxious) pedantry here -- XP and W2K3 Server aren't strictly the same codebase; The latter was a huge rewrite job with some fairly significant internal changes.
XP 64bit is based on W2K3, and Vista originally started out on the XP code base and then was scrapped, and was started over using the W2K3 codebase.
It doesn't invalidate your point in any way and the latter is most definitely descended from the former, but unlike previous products they weren't released in parallel. I mention it purely because I find it interesting, and it's also an example of how Windows is "evolving", so to speak.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
This is very common on both sides of the divide. Many Mac-only people seem to think Windows is still stuck in the Win9x days, and many of the Windows-only types seem to think MacOS is still in the 8.x days.
I guess it's a little like when your friend has kids and you don't see them for a few years, and you're surprised that instead of still being little kids they're teenagers... :)
AtHomeBoy_2000
Apr 10, 09:37 AM
I would think this revision will support 3D video editing, right?
LagunaSol
Apr 19, 10:43 PM
For that matter, people say that Apple ripped off their bookshelf from Delicious Library. Which itself took it from who knows where.
Probably from an actual bookshelf. ;)
I totally forgot about that! What a joke. Apple has become the king of hypocrites. And they copied the Apple logo from the Beatle's Apple Records.
Have you actually seen the Apple Records logo? Apparently not.
Probably from an actual bookshelf. ;)
I totally forgot about that! What a joke. Apple has become the king of hypocrites. And they copied the Apple logo from the Beatle's Apple Records.
Have you actually seen the Apple Records logo? Apparently not.
shawnce
Jul 20, 11:56 AM
yes, its known as reverse hyper threading. AMD are working on it
http://www.dvhardware.net/article10901.html
Reverse hyperthreading? Um, no. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060713-7263.html)
(also note that the article you link even notes that it was a "hoax")
http://www.dvhardware.net/article10901.html
Reverse hyperthreading? Um, no. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060713-7263.html)
(also note that the article you link even notes that it was a "hoax")
2IS
Apr 8, 08:24 PM
Intel forced nVidia out of the chipset business. :p Which is what led to this whole GPU downgrade for Sandy Bridge equipped Macs with IGPs.
Well then allow me to be the broken record...
Intel isn't forcing anything. Mac Book pro's are using Sandy Bridge AND have a separate graphics chipset. :rolleyes:
Well then allow me to be the broken record...
Intel isn't forcing anything. Mac Book pro's are using Sandy Bridge AND have a separate graphics chipset. :rolleyes:
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
ergle2
Sep 14, 08:09 PM
Not sure about beyond 8 which can be paired into a 16 core Mac. Perhaps. Too far out to tell although it is casually mentioned in the roadmap.
New micro-arch -- Nehalem is due 2008.
New micro-arch -- Nehalem is due 2008.
iJon
Apr 5, 05:19 PM
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?
Final Cut Pro supports Blu Ray authoring but it does the bare minimum only. A DVD Studio Pro like program would be nice.
Final Cut Pro supports Blu Ray authoring but it does the bare minimum only. A DVD Studio Pro like program would be nice.
scottgroovez
Apr 8, 06:09 AM
Why anyone would ever choose to buy an Apple product at Best Buy over the Apple Store is beyond me. :confused:
I just ordered a Macbook pro from BB with 15% off and a further 8% cashback saving me just over �200.
I just ordered a Macbook pro from BB with 15% off and a further 8% cashback saving me just over �200.
theOtherGeoff
Mar 22, 04:55 PM
samsung designs and builds stuff in factories they OWN. Not all of their manufacturing is outsourced, unlike apple. Yes samsung provides ram, LCD (?), and A5 for apple's ipad. It was rumored that TSMC would also make A5 for apple so that apple is not so dependent on samsung but from what I saw in teardowns, samsung is still making some, if not all, of A5.
The difference is Samsung outsources it's OS development, it's developer community management, it's app ecosystem.
Cost competitive doesn't experience competitive.
I think for 'spec' people (hard core coders, corp types that need to control configuration), Samsung (and more importantly, when HP gets in the game HP), will compete there.... HOWEVER, this is a consumer run market, and much like a Sony WalkMan back in the day, or RollerBlades([tm]... the rest were 'inline skates'), Apple is 'defining' the market... and the rest are just knockoffs.
And unlike the old BMW pricing explanation(excuse) for Macs (equal specs and quality... from Apple HP and Dell are about the same in price) Apple is pushing iPad's experience at the BMW levels, but at Honda prices.
And RIM and samsung are pushing mid 80's GM quality against a 2012 BMW at honda prices, when the market will probably demand Kia prices for the 'experience'
The difference is Samsung outsources it's OS development, it's developer community management, it's app ecosystem.
Cost competitive doesn't experience competitive.
I think for 'spec' people (hard core coders, corp types that need to control configuration), Samsung (and more importantly, when HP gets in the game HP), will compete there.... HOWEVER, this is a consumer run market, and much like a Sony WalkMan back in the day, or RollerBlades([tm]... the rest were 'inline skates'), Apple is 'defining' the market... and the rest are just knockoffs.
And unlike the old BMW pricing explanation(excuse) for Macs (equal specs and quality... from Apple HP and Dell are about the same in price) Apple is pushing iPad's experience at the BMW levels, but at Honda prices.
And RIM and samsung are pushing mid 80's GM quality against a 2012 BMW at honda prices, when the market will probably demand Kia prices for the 'experience'
Multimedia
Aug 18, 09:19 PM
I purchased Kingston PC2 5300 FB for my Mac Pro from New Egg. They seemed to have the best price and some Mac friendly reviews.
My Pro now starts 10.4.7 in less than 5 seconds!Link To New Egg Mac Pro Kingston Memory? I can't find it. How much money?
Ramseeker.com (http://Ramseeker.com) has a full Mac Pro line up of choices now. Omni OPTIVAL is only $333.99 per 2GB kit including cool blue heatsinks IF YOU USE THIS LINK (http://www.ramseeker.com/scripts/counter.php?http://www.omnitechnologies.biz/cgi-bin/catalog/cp-app.cgi?usr=51F714335&rnd=3227630&rrc=N&affl=B&cip=&act=&aff=&pg=prod&ref=APLMP2X1GB667O&cat=applem).
My Pro now starts 10.4.7 in less than 5 seconds!Link To New Egg Mac Pro Kingston Memory? I can't find it. How much money?
Ramseeker.com (http://Ramseeker.com) has a full Mac Pro line up of choices now. Omni OPTIVAL is only $333.99 per 2GB kit including cool blue heatsinks IF YOU USE THIS LINK (http://www.ramseeker.com/scripts/counter.php?http://www.omnitechnologies.biz/cgi-bin/catalog/cp-app.cgi?usr=51F714335&rnd=3227630&rrc=N&affl=B&cip=&act=&aff=&pg=prod&ref=APLMP2X1GB667O&cat=applem).
Lollypop
Jul 20, 12:47 PM
As fast as possible! Don't worry I do agree that e mail and browsing has very little to do with the processor speed, still you did ask the question! Now if only I could get a fibre link to my house without it costing a few hundred thousand Pounds a year hmm :rolleyes:
Sort of proves the point i was trying to make, at some point mose users wil rather get a beter IO subsystem than more processing power. When last i checked most operating systems dont scale very well beyond 32 processors, I asume that they have gotten the OS scale beyond that, but wont it at some point become impossible to improve to OS to scale better on more processors?
Multitasking has be mentioned as a situation where multiple processors will be an advantage, but at the same time be real, to what level do you multitast with processor intense apps?
Most of the time I have itunes running in the background, web browser open, word, entourage, few finder windows... basics really, but even with so few things open I cant concentrate on the report im writing or the thread im reading because of everything else happening and drawing my attention. Wont the same be true if not more so for a photoshop user? Or a FCP user? So asuming that you reduce the clutter wont the level of multitasking be reduced then?
Sort of proves the point i was trying to make, at some point mose users wil rather get a beter IO subsystem than more processing power. When last i checked most operating systems dont scale very well beyond 32 processors, I asume that they have gotten the OS scale beyond that, but wont it at some point become impossible to improve to OS to scale better on more processors?
Multitasking has be mentioned as a situation where multiple processors will be an advantage, but at the same time be real, to what level do you multitast with processor intense apps?
Most of the time I have itunes running in the background, web browser open, word, entourage, few finder windows... basics really, but even with so few things open I cant concentrate on the report im writing or the thread im reading because of everything else happening and drawing my attention. Wont the same be true if not more so for a photoshop user? Or a FCP user? So asuming that you reduce the clutter wont the level of multitasking be reduced then?
Piggie
Apr 25, 02:33 PM
Perhaps this is like CCTV systems in the workplace.
You are allowed by law to fit them, however staff must be told they are there.
Perhaps it's just that the public need to be made away this is being done, and not done secretly. If people knew, then this would be a non story in the 1st place.
You are allowed by law to fit them, however staff must be told they are there.
Perhaps it's just that the public need to be made away this is being done, and not done secretly. If people knew, then this would be a non story in the 1st place.
rooah1
Apr 7, 10:28 PM
These BB guys were making some odd and strange excuses for low stock. Made me run around on many occasions. They shouldn't be allowed to sell iPad. Apple take them away from these jack**s. :mad: You deserve it!!!!
jmgregory1
Mar 22, 03:42 PM
Everyone is trying to get a piece of what Apple created - and not suffer the same fate that all those that tried to compete with the iPod faced.
Without figuring out how to differentiate from what Apple is doing AND show the consumer how they can really USE the tablet, none of these players will do much more than get a small, very small, piece of the [Apple] pie.
Those people that want the iPad to do what a computer does or what a smartphone does, are not looking at the iPad the way it was intended - as something new and different. Why should it have to do what a laptop does or how a computer or phone does it?
I'm guessing that what Apple is really working on is a way to tie together all devices that isn't just a wired interface (think their data center).
Without figuring out how to differentiate from what Apple is doing AND show the consumer how they can really USE the tablet, none of these players will do much more than get a small, very small, piece of the [Apple] pie.
Those people that want the iPad to do what a computer does or what a smartphone does, are not looking at the iPad the way it was intended - as something new and different. Why should it have to do what a laptop does or how a computer or phone does it?
I'm guessing that what Apple is really working on is a way to tie together all devices that isn't just a wired interface (think their data center).
Warbrain
Apr 25, 04:47 PM
Except secured
It's not secured. Just purged correctly.
It's not secured. Just purged correctly.
Dan==
Jul 27, 05:02 PM
Another way Apple could do it is just to elongate the Mini's case to make it just as svelte vertically, only slightly wider. Could you take a run at that one Dan==? ;)
I could take a stab to make a Mini double-wide :-). (Perhaps not til the weekend tho to make it pretty.)
It would work well in home entertainment setups, but not so much on the desktop, I think. I'd expect a deeper, rather than wider, chassis would be preferred.
I could take a stab to make a Mini double-wide :-). (Perhaps not til the weekend tho to make it pretty.)
It would work well in home entertainment setups, but not so much on the desktop, I think. I'd expect a deeper, rather than wider, chassis would be preferred.