dethmaShine
Apr 20, 09:12 AM
Sure manufacturers always have a couple of design laying arund just in case.
Reality of course is samsung had bene designing that for quit some time as were others .
Nice how you ignore LG completly. How could they have copied (what apple is now sueing samsung over) when they showed there phone before apple? Or did apple copy from prada, following your logique they did.
Seriously the iPhone looks like Prada? I'd got to be blind to not notice that.
The only similarity is the rounded corners and even the rounded corners look very different.
What exactly is similar if I may know?
Reality of course is samsung had bene designing that for quit some time as were others .
Nice how you ignore LG completly. How could they have copied (what apple is now sueing samsung over) when they showed there phone before apple? Or did apple copy from prada, following your logique they did.
Seriously the iPhone looks like Prada? I'd got to be blind to not notice that.
The only similarity is the rounded corners and even the rounded corners look very different.
What exactly is similar if I may know?
Huntn
Aug 16, 10:20 AM
As I am newly familiar with Need For Sped: Shift. How would you guys compare the two games?
I don't know if it is my imagination but some of the racing demos I've tried, the cars seem to skid out of control relatively easily. I'm wondering if this is a characteristic of "realsim" in a racing game?
I don't know if it is my imagination but some of the racing demos I've tried, the cars seem to skid out of control relatively easily. I'm wondering if this is a characteristic of "realsim" in a racing game?
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.
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.
cgc
Jul 21, 03:20 PM
All I will say is that you are not a typical user. You are not even close to typical.
OK. So maybe you need ten thousand cores and three million gigabytes of RAM. Don't think for an instant that the majority of the world shares your requirements.
It must take a lot of cores to RIP DVDs and seed them...:confused:
OK. So maybe you need ten thousand cores and three million gigabytes of RAM. Don't think for an instant that the majority of the world shares your requirements.
It must take a lot of cores to RIP DVDs and seed them...:confused:
iJawn108
Jul 20, 04:55 PM
New MacPro rev2.
8 cores = 24Ghz
(with Free fire extinguisher and ear plugs) :p
I really laughed out loud at that. :p
8 cores = 24Ghz
(with Free fire extinguisher and ear plugs) :p
I really laughed out loud at that. :p
mandoman
Nov 28, 06:33 PM
Universal can take their catalog of music and shove it where
the sun don't shine.
the sun don't shine.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 10, 09:12 AM
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and it ain't the whole fact that Apple pushed aside every professional vid company just to announce their product. It's that they never have announced pro-level products at/alongside professional trade shows prior to this. CES is one thing, but I don't ever recall Apple ever placing any presence at/during NAB or AES (the latter of which they would present something related to the Logic Pro) before.
You need to consult a doctor ASAP because your memory isn't so good. It's only been a few years since Apple pulled out of NAB. Prior to that Apple use to announce products alongside NAB all the time. In fact the very first version of FCP was announced at Supermeet.
Since then:
NAB '01: DVD SP 1.5
NAB '02, '03: new versions of FCP
NAB '05, 06, 07, 09: new versions of FCS
Anyone else call BS on that whole article?
Huh? Did you see the video. This is a legit NAB discussion panel. But I see where you are coming from b/c it's completely unlike Apple to go off on a new paradigm. I mean Apple would be the last company to shock customers and the industry by ditching the floppy drive at the peak of it's existence. And it would never just completely rewrite a popular consumer program like iMovie. Or take the lead on a new connector like Thunderbolt. Never, because we all know Apple is a company that follows other's lead. :rolleyes:
I since there will be a lot of the usually howling when this new FCP is previewed. It looks like Apple is taking video editing in a completely new direction, hence the sentimental journey back to the place where FCP was first launched. Based on the video Apple is jettisoning old media (TV, Movie) editing for new media (web). The latter market is bigger and it also fits in better with Apple's new consumer-leaning sales model.
Personally I'm excited to see what Tues brings.
Although a new FCP is great news, I'm wondering if the new Motion is going to be equally exciting. It's about time it stepped up and challenged After Effects.
I suspect Apple did a re-think of the entire suite and the Motion graphics will not only give AE a run for it's money but that Motion will be better integrated into FCP.
You need to consult a doctor ASAP because your memory isn't so good. It's only been a few years since Apple pulled out of NAB. Prior to that Apple use to announce products alongside NAB all the time. In fact the very first version of FCP was announced at Supermeet.
Since then:
NAB '01: DVD SP 1.5
NAB '02, '03: new versions of FCP
NAB '05, 06, 07, 09: new versions of FCS
Anyone else call BS on that whole article?
Huh? Did you see the video. This is a legit NAB discussion panel. But I see where you are coming from b/c it's completely unlike Apple to go off on a new paradigm. I mean Apple would be the last company to shock customers and the industry by ditching the floppy drive at the peak of it's existence. And it would never just completely rewrite a popular consumer program like iMovie. Or take the lead on a new connector like Thunderbolt. Never, because we all know Apple is a company that follows other's lead. :rolleyes:
I since there will be a lot of the usually howling when this new FCP is previewed. It looks like Apple is taking video editing in a completely new direction, hence the sentimental journey back to the place where FCP was first launched. Based on the video Apple is jettisoning old media (TV, Movie) editing for new media (web). The latter market is bigger and it also fits in better with Apple's new consumer-leaning sales model.
Personally I'm excited to see what Tues brings.
Although a new FCP is great news, I'm wondering if the new Motion is going to be equally exciting. It's about time it stepped up and challenged After Effects.
I suspect Apple did a re-think of the entire suite and the Motion graphics will not only give AE a run for it's money but that Motion will be better integrated into FCP.
gorgeousninja
Mar 22, 08:43 PM
This is just a preview of the future, Android based tablets will clean the iPads clock. Apple made the so-called iPad 2 as a 1.5. Low res camera, not enough RAM, and low res screen. It's going to be a verrrry long 2012 for Apple. Sure it's selling like hot cakes now, but when buyers see tablets that they don't have to stand inline for, that have better equipment and are cheaper ... Apples house of cards will come crashing down around them.
The only strength that Apple has is the app ecosystem; which is why they are going after Amazon for spiting on the sidewalk. They know the world of hurt coming their way.
All hail the unicorn rider!
It's great that you're such a fan of imitators and snake-oil products cos a lot of manufacturers are counting on the fact some people are so gullible.
I know the strategy of throwing enough mud hoping some of it will stick, but you've called 'Fail' on Apple so often that it becomes just a jaded cliche...
maybe next time you could be positive about an Apple product.
Not only would the shock nearly kill us, it might put more people off buying it than the juvenile drama of proclaiming ' a world of hurt'.
ps Oh and you do realize in your post that you've admitted to the app store concept as being an Apple product do you?
That does contradict a lot of the usual haters, so you might want to confer with yourselves on how exactly Android was secretly ahead of Apple on that.
The only strength that Apple has is the app ecosystem; which is why they are going after Amazon for spiting on the sidewalk. They know the world of hurt coming their way.
All hail the unicorn rider!
It's great that you're such a fan of imitators and snake-oil products cos a lot of manufacturers are counting on the fact some people are so gullible.
I know the strategy of throwing enough mud hoping some of it will stick, but you've called 'Fail' on Apple so often that it becomes just a jaded cliche...
maybe next time you could be positive about an Apple product.
Not only would the shock nearly kill us, it might put more people off buying it than the juvenile drama of proclaiming ' a world of hurt'.
ps Oh and you do realize in your post that you've admitted to the app store concept as being an Apple product do you?
That does contradict a lot of the usual haters, so you might want to confer with yourselves on how exactly Android was secretly ahead of Apple on that.
ThunderSkunk
Apr 10, 12:20 AM
Wow. You'd think a FCP Users group would be able to track down a halfway decent graphic artist to make their banner graphic...
joecool85
Jul 27, 09:41 AM
Yay! Chips that don't suck and are fast! (I hate P4s)
aaronb
Sep 19, 10:51 AM
So the Apple crew is simply waiting on marketing until they release these new laptops? Exactly how much marketing needs to go into a slight update? I understand that these are 64-bit processors but the average consumer has no clue what that means to begin with. Waiting for the marketing crew seems really strange to me, should they have not already been ready for this transition by now? Just make a box on the front page that has a picture of a MBP and let it say "the fastest just got faster" or something.
HORTENSE
Apr 7, 10:20 PM
So they DID have my Black 64GB ATT. I'm stuck with this Verizon model ,'-,
ergle2
Sep 13, 12:53 PM
Only the Yonah based Core Duo iMacs are 32bit (Well, and the G3/G4 too). G5 and the new iMac Core 2 Duo models on sale now are 64bit. Not that it matters per se.
The Chipset in the Yonah iMac is still 945, which works fine with Merom's long mode (64bit/EM64T more).
The Chipset in the Yonah iMac is still 945, which works fine with Merom's long mode (64bit/EM64T more).
povman
Aug 7, 05:46 PM
From Vista Help:
"Previous versions of files and folders are copies that Windows automatically saves as part of a restore point. Any file or folder that was modified since the last restore point was made (usually 24 hours earlier) is saved and made available as a previous version. You can use previous versions of files to restore files that you accidentally modified or deleted, or that were damaged."
I can use this now but without childish animations. Simple right-click the folder and select "restore previous versions".
from your description, the 'restore previous files' thing is more like backup&restore
If apple really is using zfs in leopard, then time machine is going to be a lot more than just saving files and restoring them.... It's more like 'hey we got some extra disk space. instead of overwriting this file, lets write it somewhere else so the old version is still there :D'
i.e. ALL versions of all files are saved until you run out of space, then you start to lose old stuff. Well i guess there might be some modifications so it only applies to certain files or something...
i do hope they lose the space stars background on it though... replace it with a rotating spiral and i'd be happy :D
"Previous versions of files and folders are copies that Windows automatically saves as part of a restore point. Any file or folder that was modified since the last restore point was made (usually 24 hours earlier) is saved and made available as a previous version. You can use previous versions of files to restore files that you accidentally modified or deleted, or that were damaged."
I can use this now but without childish animations. Simple right-click the folder and select "restore previous versions".
from your description, the 'restore previous files' thing is more like backup&restore
If apple really is using zfs in leopard, then time machine is going to be a lot more than just saving files and restoring them.... It's more like 'hey we got some extra disk space. instead of overwriting this file, lets write it somewhere else so the old version is still there :D'
i.e. ALL versions of all files are saved until you run out of space, then you start to lose old stuff. Well i guess there might be some modifications so it only applies to certain files or something...
i do hope they lose the space stars background on it though... replace it with a rotating spiral and i'd be happy :D
zero2dash
Sep 13, 12:11 PM
How is this Apple "innovating"? Anandtech just put pre-release quad-core Intel-processor in to an Apple-computer. Apple itself had nothing to do with it. They could have used quad-core Dell-machine just as well.
The OS takes advantage of the extra 4 cores already therefore its ahead of the technology curve, correct? Gee, no innovation here...please move along folks. :rolleyes:
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores. You think those fools (the same idiots who came up with Genuine Advantage) actually optimized their OS to run in an 8 core setup? Please pass along what you're smoking. :rolleyes:
The OS takes advantage of the extra 4 cores already therefore its ahead of the technology curve, correct? Gee, no innovation here...please move along folks. :rolleyes:
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores. You think those fools (the same idiots who came up with Genuine Advantage) actually optimized their OS to run in an 8 core setup? Please pass along what you're smoking. :rolleyes:
madmax_2069
Dec 12, 04:57 PM
It's not a bad game but it could have been a lot better
Yeah for the amount of developing time and the money that went into GT5 yes it could have been way better then how it turned out. many things can be fixed with patches, but it should not have needed to on release. i can see a few bugs and such but not like when it first came out.
Yeah for the amount of developing time and the money that went into GT5 yes it could have been way better then how it turned out. many things can be fixed with patches, but it should not have needed to on release. i can see a few bugs and such but not like when it first came out.
kcmac
Aug 7, 08:54 PM
I don't believe that we have to wait until Spring 2007.:mad:
Oh well. Wait or not, Apple will still be way ahead of Microsoft!
I loved the Vista bashing. Better yet, it came from a French guy!:D
The French have been particularly strong lately. First Landis, Now M$. What happened to the white towel? :D ....sorry couldn't resist.
Oh well. Wait or not, Apple will still be way ahead of Microsoft!
I loved the Vista bashing. Better yet, it came from a French guy!:D
The French have been particularly strong lately. First Landis, Now M$. What happened to the white towel? :D ....sorry couldn't resist.
bigandy
Nov 29, 11:37 AM
Same here, paying a levy on iPod's is like paying one on Hard drives as many of them contain copyrighted material, except they could never do that as the business world would go insane if they had to pay a levy to the music industry.
i agree too. it's kinda making you want to rip off their music seeing as you'd be paying for it already :rolleyes:
i agree too. it's kinda making you want to rip off their music seeing as you'd be paying for it already :rolleyes:
BornAgainMac
Aug 17, 09:19 AM
Won't Adobe use Core Image when the Universal Binaries come out? If both Quads had the same high powered graphics card, the benchmarks may show them to be the same with Core Image tasks.
oldwatery
Apr 19, 02:03 PM
Apple as Big Brother.
How ironic!
How ironic!
Full of Win
Mar 22, 03:31 PM
Not enough RAM to do what exactly?
To store data temporally. That is what RAM does.
To store data temporally. That is what RAM does.
Bosunsfate
Aug 8, 12:39 AM
:p
As I had said many times before, we were not going to see just upgraded features. Rather the show stoppers are something no one had thought of before.
You guys and Apple are really doing a sweet job....and yea take the rest of the year off.....but then again, I need Leopard shipped, so get that out first. ;)
As I had said many times before, we were not going to see just upgraded features. Rather the show stoppers are something no one had thought of before.
You guys and Apple are really doing a sweet job....and yea take the rest of the year off.....but then again, I need Leopard shipped, so get that out first. ;)
enda1
Aug 11, 06:56 PM
Is Europe not a way bigger mobile phone market than the US anyway. I don't see why any technology company would alienate a huge sector of its market in this way. It will definitely be released in Europe too.
It will not be a flip phone, or a slide phone or any of those stupid ass gimmicky phones you use over there. It will be just a nano derivative I would say. It will be GSM, it will be quad band.
Signed,
Stevie J ;)
It will not be a flip phone, or a slide phone or any of those stupid ass gimmicky phones you use over there. It will be just a nano derivative I would say. It will be GSM, it will be quad band.
Signed,
Stevie J ;)
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق