Kingsly
Sep 1, 02:08 AM
Well for the sake of pontificating.....
Taking pictures and movies wtih cell phones is very big right now.
But as Steve Jobs would say "it's not a great experience."
He'll show a really crappy movie made on a cell phone.
He'll talk about how the world is evolving, more bandwidth has led to sites like Youtube.
Consumers are getting way more intelligent with movies, and we pioneered desktop movies with iMovie and then added HD functionality with iMovie HD.
But we want to take this one step further.
We want to go from this (shows youtube home movie) to a really great cinematic experience.
Today Apple introduces the world's least expensive High Definition video camera. There are no tapes. It's as easy as iPod.
You just shoot in 1080p, hook it up to your supercharged Intel Mac, edit in iMovie HD, and BOOM.
Look at this. It's gorgeous. Isn't this amazing?
So we're going from this (youtube video) to this. BOOM. Wow.
ROARS OF APPLAUSE AND THUNDER.
And we're introducing the all new QuickTake (or iCam whatever) for just $599.
Do you take PayPal!?!?!?!?!?
Taking pictures and movies wtih cell phones is very big right now.
But as Steve Jobs would say "it's not a great experience."
He'll show a really crappy movie made on a cell phone.
He'll talk about how the world is evolving, more bandwidth has led to sites like Youtube.
Consumers are getting way more intelligent with movies, and we pioneered desktop movies with iMovie and then added HD functionality with iMovie HD.
But we want to take this one step further.
We want to go from this (shows youtube home movie) to a really great cinematic experience.
Today Apple introduces the world's least expensive High Definition video camera. There are no tapes. It's as easy as iPod.
You just shoot in 1080p, hook it up to your supercharged Intel Mac, edit in iMovie HD, and BOOM.
Look at this. It's gorgeous. Isn't this amazing?
So we're going from this (youtube video) to this. BOOM. Wow.
ROARS OF APPLAUSE AND THUNDER.
And we're introducing the all new QuickTake (or iCam whatever) for just $599.
Do you take PayPal!?!?!?!?!?
foo10
Jul 17, 09:31 AM
I hope well have a Core 2 Duo on a MBP soon. I've been thinking of selling my 20" G5 iMac and buying a 17" MBP.
tlinford
May 3, 10:36 AM
wow thats pretty cool with the option of the trackpad. I think its a must on any iMac. I couldn't live without it. :)
I can't agree more. I bought a trackpad a few months ago for using with my MacBook when I'm at home using the MacBook in Clamshell mode on a monitor. I was finding, increasingly, that I was missing the gestures that I had unconsciously got used to when using the laptop at University. I was actually finding my old mouse quite annoying!
The trackpad is a great device and natural to use, I would feel frustrated without it..
I can't agree more. I bought a trackpad a few months ago for using with my MacBook when I'm at home using the MacBook in Clamshell mode on a monitor. I was finding, increasingly, that I was missing the gestures that I had unconsciously got used to when using the laptop at University. I was actually finding my old mouse quite annoying!
The trackpad is a great device and natural to use, I would feel frustrated without it..
sishaw
Apr 19, 08:24 AM
that's because samsung supplies all these companies with parts for their phones. Sue Samsung, risk getting the shaft on internals! We'll see what happens.
Yeah, I'm wondering if this is a smart move on Apple's part for that reason. Unless they've lined up another supplier that we don't know about.
Yeah, I'm wondering if this is a smart move on Apple's part for that reason. Unless they've lined up another supplier that we don't know about.
TallManNY
Apr 22, 08:22 AM
If single use ownership is the wave of the future and that results in people buying more stuff, stuff like CDs, DVDs, and Digital Books which are basically infinite unconstrained resources (i.e., no supply issue for any of these), then prices for them will go down. So this is unlikely to be a negative for the consumer.
I have my iPhone with me at all times and it has enough songs on it that I don't feel constrained. So streaming doesn't seem too exciting. Also, I doubt AT&T's New York cell coverage will be able to handle it to make this a nice experience.
I have my iPhone with me at all times and it has enough songs on it that I don't feel constrained. So streaming doesn't seem too exciting. Also, I doubt AT&T's New York cell coverage will be able to handle it to make this a nice experience.
iRobby
Mar 23, 06:47 PM
It's true what they say "Mac's just work."
I've been told "Once you go Mac you don't go back!"
Judging from my experience with my iPhone 3GS making me wanting to get an iMac 27" inch Quad Core I may agree.
I've been told "Once you go Mac you don't go back!"
Judging from my experience with my iPhone 3GS making me wanting to get an iMac 27" inch Quad Core I may agree.
iJawn108
Oct 12, 08:23 PM
Meh I want the black nano to match my macbook, not a red one. :\
vouder17
Sep 15, 05:34 PM
3MP iPod camera phone?!?!? i'll be the first one in line to have it:p
there are a number of phones out in Europe already that have 3MP cameras, Nokia N73 and the sony ericsson w800i to name a few.
Edit: its the Sony ericsson K800, not the w800
there are a number of phones out in Europe already that have 3MP cameras, Nokia N73 and the sony ericsson w800i to name a few.
Edit: its the Sony ericsson K800, not the w800
Donz0r
Sep 14, 01:52 AM
I hope iPhone will have a good sync with the Mac. If i am only looking for a pretty cell phone, there are a lot in the japanese market.
WTf man of course it will sink well jesus wtf is this a rehehtetorical quesiton1?!!!??! omfg i hatye stupid posts, but we have the same name coooooll!!!!!! ogjsorry i'm just a little drunk right now 1woohoo colelge partty!
WTf man of course it will sink well jesus wtf is this a rehehtetorical quesiton1?!!!??! omfg i hatye stupid posts, but we have the same name coooooll!!!!!! ogjsorry i'm just a little drunk right now 1woohoo colelge partty!
valiar
Sep 27, 04:18 PM
You do realize DVD itself is heavily DRMed, although its CSS is easily cracked. Its Macrovision protection is flawed, and regional coding can be circumvented.
If iTS movie DRM can be cracked, would it make it a better value for you? Why are we even comparing it to DVDs? If you wish to have the convenience of portable digital downloads, then it is a great service.
I am comparing this iTMS stuff to DVDs because, duh, it costs the same.
And media companies think that I should pay the same money for less stuff in return.
The answer to your second question is YES. iTMS WILL be a better value for me if DRM was cracked, and Apple was not releasing iTunes nerfs to kill the DRM holes.
DVDs are DRMed, but this DRM is hard-coded, cannot be updated, and has already been cracked. Apple, on the other hand, plays cat-and-mouse games with crackers and does update their DRM periodically (of course, to avoid troubles with RIAA/MPAA).
Thus, no matter what they do, I am not buying their stuff. Until the price goes significantly down (read: cheaper than AllOfMP3.com).
If iTS movie DRM can be cracked, would it make it a better value for you? Why are we even comparing it to DVDs? If you wish to have the convenience of portable digital downloads, then it is a great service.
I am comparing this iTMS stuff to DVDs because, duh, it costs the same.
And media companies think that I should pay the same money for less stuff in return.
The answer to your second question is YES. iTMS WILL be a better value for me if DRM was cracked, and Apple was not releasing iTunes nerfs to kill the DRM holes.
DVDs are DRMed, but this DRM is hard-coded, cannot be updated, and has already been cracked. Apple, on the other hand, plays cat-and-mouse games with crackers and does update their DRM periodically (of course, to avoid troubles with RIAA/MPAA).
Thus, no matter what they do, I am not buying their stuff. Until the price goes significantly down (read: cheaper than AllOfMP3.com).
ehoui
Apr 28, 04:14 PM
Long on Apple, Microsoft and Google. These are the class leaders. Microsoft is entrenched and executes well in the enterprise space. Their consumer products are good, but not great. While they suffer from too much breadth and not enough deep focus, they have the will to invest for the long term and that is important. Google can be a game changer when they go after a space. Apple executes incredibly well in the consumer space. All good here.
iJawn108
Sep 14, 05:09 PM
The invitation suggests Aperture, but could it also be an extreme closeup of an isight camera on a black anodized MBP? ;) :cool: :D :eek: :confused:
i honestly don't think they will pull the black(top model) stuff into the pro line.
i honestly don't think they will pull the black(top model) stuff into the pro line.
Peace
Aug 31, 04:44 PM
Well if they do the announcement late on Monday 12 in Cupertino that will be Tuesday in Paris (time zone difference is +9) so will comply with the tradition LOL :rolleyes: :p :D
Sept. 12th is a Tuesday in Cupertino.
Sept. 12th is a Tuesday in Cupertino.
Macnoviz
Oct 12, 02:32 PM
No, not like that at all. That one hurts my eyes. I mean there's one on there that's like the one I commented on, but same color clickwheel. Like this:
http://www.exit42design.com/stuffDirectory/redNanoClickwheel.jpg
I don't know, it looks kinda pink, I would like to see it darker, blackisher (not Burgundy, mind you)
http://www.exit42design.com/stuffDirectory/redNanoClickwheel.jpg
I don't know, it looks kinda pink, I would like to see it darker, blackisher (not Burgundy, mind you)
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
morespce54
Apr 4, 12:05 PM
What would you do if someone was shooting at you?
...Eh, shoot back? But not in the head... A head shot, geez... That wasn't meant to stop him, that was meant to kill him...
...Eh, shoot back? But not in the head... A head shot, geez... That wasn't meant to stop him, that was meant to kill him...
rychencop
Jan 1, 07:57 PM
Targeting is one thing. Successfully attacking is a completely different animal. They've been targeting OS X since it came out a decade ago. Successful attacks range from barely a blip on the radar to nonexistent, depending on how you define success. There's no reason to believe that attacks on IOS will be half as successful as the pitiful attacks on OS X.
i agree...until there is a credible threat created, i will not lose a second of sleep.
i agree...until there is a credible threat created, i will not lose a second of sleep.
Multimedia
Sep 9, 01:11 PM
It also depends if you can run multiple instances of that application. A little help here Multimedia? I know you've used multiple instances of Toast. Care to enlighten us on what other applications we can do the same? Maybe we should make a guide on it...Preemble clarification: I use Toast (http://www.roxio.com/enu/products/toast/titanium/overview.html) in a highly unorthodox way - nothing to do with writing DVDs or CDs. I use it most of the time to write DVD IMAGES that Handbrake (http://handbrake.m0k.org/) understands how to make priistine mp4 files from. I am able to reduce a 4.3GB original EyeTV HD broadcast recording down to 351MB using this method. The result is an excellent, albeit soft, version of the original that can go on an iPod or two on a CD and when played on an analog TV from the iPod looks just like a DVD. On a HD monitor it still looks great. Just a little soft. Sound quality is identical to the original.
I haven't explored what else we can run simultaneously beyond Toast (http://www.roxio.com/enu/products/toast/titanium/overview.html) and Handbrake (http://handbrake.m0k.org/). I can run as many instances of those as I like. But I run out of cores even just running both of them because they will each use more than two cores given the chance to run alone. Running them simultaneously even with a second Handbrake running third, still gets all the jobs done faster than waiting for two to run and then running the third. Handbrake will process up to about 150-160 fps when two copies are running while it will process only about 93-100 fps alone.
Handbrake FPS readings vary a lot between the analysis pass and the writing pass - much slower writing on the second pass than studying-planning the writing scheme on the first pass on both the Quad and the Mac Pro. On the Mac Pro, Toast will use almost all 4 cores given no competition. But so far I'm not convinced it is encoding EyeTV recordings for DVD images much faster than it does on teh Quad - yes 7.1 UB. I need to go back and exact time some encodes on the Mac Pro then compare that here on the Quad to tell.
Just tried to launch a second copy of EyeTV and it's a no go. Maybe if I have another liscense with another tuner like the new hybrid it will work with a second copy - don't know yet. Probably getting an EyeTV hybrid tuner (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna) soon so I can record two HD shows at once.
A Multi-Instance and Multi-Core Usage Guide would be a great help. Does someone with authorization want to start a thread on this subject? I am not authorized to create new threads. But I would be happy to contribute to it. If someone with new thread creation permission does it, please post a link to it here. Thank you.
I haven't explored what else we can run simultaneously beyond Toast (http://www.roxio.com/enu/products/toast/titanium/overview.html) and Handbrake (http://handbrake.m0k.org/). I can run as many instances of those as I like. But I run out of cores even just running both of them because they will each use more than two cores given the chance to run alone. Running them simultaneously even with a second Handbrake running third, still gets all the jobs done faster than waiting for two to run and then running the third. Handbrake will process up to about 150-160 fps when two copies are running while it will process only about 93-100 fps alone.
Handbrake FPS readings vary a lot between the analysis pass and the writing pass - much slower writing on the second pass than studying-planning the writing scheme on the first pass on both the Quad and the Mac Pro. On the Mac Pro, Toast will use almost all 4 cores given no competition. But so far I'm not convinced it is encoding EyeTV recordings for DVD images much faster than it does on teh Quad - yes 7.1 UB. I need to go back and exact time some encodes on the Mac Pro then compare that here on the Quad to tell.
Just tried to launch a second copy of EyeTV and it's a no go. Maybe if I have another liscense with another tuner like the new hybrid it will work with a second copy - don't know yet. Probably getting an EyeTV hybrid tuner (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna) soon so I can record two HD shows at once.
A Multi-Instance and Multi-Core Usage Guide would be a great help. Does someone with authorization want to start a thread on this subject? I am not authorized to create new threads. But I would be happy to contribute to it. If someone with new thread creation permission does it, please post a link to it here. Thank you.
Peace
Sep 5, 04:46 PM
ok, just made a quick mockup of what i would like to see announced next week :cool:
http://users.pandora.be/blackbox/airport_video.png
and make shure it also works with video_ts folders and avi/divx files (maybe via a front row API for third party developers like VLC?) ;)
this would perfectly complement that itunes movie store
Only one problem with that..
You can already do it with iTunes sharing.Just have a Mini next to the TV.
And it would be hard to go to one room and start the movie then go to the other room and start watching it.
If there is a media device it will be set-top box or Mini style that sits next to the main TV.
http://users.pandora.be/blackbox/airport_video.png
and make shure it also works with video_ts folders and avi/divx files (maybe via a front row API for third party developers like VLC?) ;)
this would perfectly complement that itunes movie store
Only one problem with that..
You can already do it with iTunes sharing.Just have a Mini next to the TV.
And it would be hard to go to one room and start the movie then go to the other room and start watching it.
If there is a media device it will be set-top box or Mini style that sits next to the main TV.
MBPro825
Apr 10, 01:20 PM
Obviously McAfee has a vested interest is spewing "fear FUD" such as this. :rolleyes:
Interesting isn't it how McAfee could benefit from these "New security threats"
Interesting isn't it how McAfee could benefit from these "New security threats"
Wolfpup
Jan 13, 10:30 AM
Even at that level it's a real PITA. Seriously, not only it pops up way too often, but it slows down installations. Some older computers and netbooks just freeze for several minutes after trying to open large installers, while UAC is analyzing or something.
Regarding the first point, that's not true at all. There's no reason you should be seeing it in normal use on a day to day basis. It's the same as in OS X. Regarding the latter...I haven't had that happen, but I did see on GOG.com they mentioned that it can take a while with large installers on some systems with that on.
Regarding the first point, that's not true at all. There's no reason you should be seeing it in normal use on a day to day basis. It's the same as in OS X. Regarding the latter...I haven't had that happen, but I did see on GOG.com they mentioned that it can take a while with large installers on some systems with that on.
Derekasaurus
Jul 14, 09:47 AM
Clock speeds will hit 4GHz and keep rising, but not at the rate we have been accustomed to.
I'm not so sure that 4GHz is a given. Doesn't that pesky speed of light put a practical cap on clock frequency? At 4GHz a signal doesn't have time to cross the chip in one clock, so is there any point to such high frequencies?
I'm not so sure that 4GHz is a given. Doesn't that pesky speed of light put a practical cap on clock frequency? At 4GHz a signal doesn't have time to cross the chip in one clock, so is there any point to such high frequencies?
superleccy
Aug 28, 12:07 PM
I bet they release a "processor bump" tomorrow.
SL
SL
Yvan256
Sep 10, 01:03 AM
That's right. But, with the plugins, it plays them just fine, so in theory it should be perfectly streamable, right?
I don't know where you got your plug-ins, but DivX under Quicktime freezes my whole computer for a few seconds when it loads the file.
Besides, forget DivX, especially with Apple devices. Rip your DVDs to H.264/AAC.
I don't know where you got your plug-ins, but DivX under Quicktime freezes my whole computer for a few seconds when it loads the file.
Besides, forget DivX, especially with Apple devices. Rip your DVDs to H.264/AAC.