bousozoku
Nov 28, 10:16 PM
I would assume that Microsoft agreed to pay Universal just because it could cause Apple problems, not because they felt any need to pay.
Universal tried to sue Sony back in the 1970s over videocassette recorders. They were somewhat successful in scaring people from buying Sony VCRs, even though they weren't really successful in court.
I can't see as how they'll be pushing Apple too far. It seems every day, Universal and its subsidiaries lose ground to competitors.
Universal tried to sue Sony back in the 1970s over videocassette recorders. They were somewhat successful in scaring people from buying Sony VCRs, even though they weren't really successful in court.
I can't see as how they'll be pushing Apple too far. It seems every day, Universal and its subsidiaries lose ground to competitors.
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.
daneoni
Aug 22, 10:18 PM
Yeah im not surprised. I went to my local store today and saw one in all its glory attached to a 30" ACD. It was VERY fast, system prefs launched in micro seconds, a meaty FCP project opened in less than 5 seconds same for Aperture & Logic, 1080p HD trailers were chewed and spit out using less than 10% of processing power. Totally amazing and best part...its very quiet. I played with a Quad G5 once and it sounded like a jet engine taking off.
I defo want one but it'll cost me an arm and leg. Sigh...
I defo want one but it'll cost me an arm and leg. Sigh...
gregarious119
Jul 14, 02:34 PM
To charge $1800 for a system that only has 512MB is a real disappoitment. 1GB RAM oughta be standard, especially with Leopard being on the horizon.
Unless the Xeon is that expensive (which I can't see how it would be), I don't see that as anything except creating some seperation between the configurations.
Unless the Xeon is that expensive (which I can't see how it would be), I don't see that as anything except creating some seperation between the configurations.
squeeks
Apr 28, 03:44 PM
I think it is absolutely appalling that you people are calling anyone who just wanted proof that Obama is qualified, per the constitution, to be president (being born in America) a racist. That is an awful big accusation and personally I can't believe the administration at MR allows that kind of talk.
This is exactly why I no longer donate to this site.
This is exactly why I no longer donate to this site.
illegalprelude
Aug 26, 12:10 AM
I guess I am lucky, but I haven't had problems through all the Macs I have bought. It may be because I haven't bought rev A of any product.
The eMac was 2nd gen. No problems.
The iBook was 2nd to last gen. No problems.
And the Intel Mac mini is just an internals change. We'll wait and see.
If my Intel mini conks out unexpectedly, I will give Apple one more chance, because they haven't worked with Intel hardware extensively like PPC hardware.
At the same time, there is a price to pay for lower prices. Would you be willing to pay premiums for quality? I'm glad Apples are cheaper, but not glad about the downturn in quality. I think I would pay a bit more for quality, myself.
were not paying premium? :confused:
The eMac was 2nd gen. No problems.
The iBook was 2nd to last gen. No problems.
And the Intel Mac mini is just an internals change. We'll wait and see.
If my Intel mini conks out unexpectedly, I will give Apple one more chance, because they haven't worked with Intel hardware extensively like PPC hardware.
At the same time, there is a price to pay for lower prices. Would you be willing to pay premiums for quality? I'm glad Apples are cheaper, but not glad about the downturn in quality. I think I would pay a bit more for quality, myself.
were not paying premium? :confused:
dclocke
Sep 19, 09:43 AM
You're so wrong. Most people posting in this thread don't have a clue what 64 bit computing really means. They just think they have to have it because it's the newest thing.
That doesn't mean they think they need a 64-bit processor just so they can use a lot of RAM. I may be wrong, but the content of your post certainly doesn't justify this assertion.
That doesn't mean they think they need a 64-bit processor just so they can use a lot of RAM. I may be wrong, but the content of your post certainly doesn't justify this assertion.
Danksi
Aug 15, 01:16 PM
Video cards won't make a difference in FCP as of now if that's what you are asking performance wise. If you are using Motion/Games, anything that really feeds off the video card, then I'd go for the higher end video card.
Otherwise I'd go for the 2.6 ghz.
I've not really used Motion yet, just the other apps within FC-Studio.
Just been comparing their iMac 1.9 G5 results with those of the 2.66Ghz Mac Pro numbers... I don't think I'll be disappointed in the performance boost! :D
I guess my main concern is whether or not Apple integrates the individual Final Cut Studio applications more closely, so all of a sudden you'd need a better graphics card to comfortably run the 'editor', rather than just Motion as is the case at the moment.
I think I'll stick to the 2.66Ghz and standard graphics card, as FCP and compressor are more CPU intensive I believe.
Otherwise I'd go for the 2.6 ghz.
I've not really used Motion yet, just the other apps within FC-Studio.
Just been comparing their iMac 1.9 G5 results with those of the 2.66Ghz Mac Pro numbers... I don't think I'll be disappointed in the performance boost! :D
I guess my main concern is whether or not Apple integrates the individual Final Cut Studio applications more closely, so all of a sudden you'd need a better graphics card to comfortably run the 'editor', rather than just Motion as is the case at the moment.
I think I'll stick to the 2.66Ghz and standard graphics card, as FCP and compressor are more CPU intensive I believe.
mwswami
Jul 21, 10:20 AM
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.
I agree with all you said except for the above. Most servers don't use a thread per connection model. Using non-blocking, asynchronous, or event based IO you can get a lot higher scalability with far fewer threads. But its true - you get more work done with more cores.
Multi-core systems on the server are also great for supporting virtual environments. The higher the number of cores, memory etc, the better it is for supporting larger number of virtual servers.
I agree with all you said except for the above. Most servers don't use a thread per connection model. Using non-blocking, asynchronous, or event based IO you can get a lot higher scalability with far fewer threads. But its true - you get more work done with more cores.
Multi-core systems on the server are also great for supporting virtual environments. The higher the number of cores, memory etc, the better it is for supporting larger number of virtual servers.
BRLawyer
Jul 15, 01:28 PM
That would be a good lineup: two Minis, two iMacs, two Macs, two MacPros. Perhaps then the spread from $1499 for a base model conroe Mac to a $3299 or even $3599 for a premo dual-woodcrest 3GHz MacPro would seem plausible? I really like having a Mac desktop option before stepping up to the MacPro (with a smaller format). Right now the iMac is your only option in a certain range.
I agree with another poster too, having both models silent would be most excellent!
This sounds to me like a redux of the Performa/Quadra/LC disaster of the late 90s...I am glad Apple has learned from its mistakes, so it does NOT stretch its production line to a plethora of unnecessary models anymore...
A cheapo MacPro model is more than enough to fill any gaps between the iMac and the Pro line...nothing else.
I agree with another poster too, having both models silent would be most excellent!
This sounds to me like a redux of the Performa/Quadra/LC disaster of the late 90s...I am glad Apple has learned from its mistakes, so it does NOT stretch its production line to a plethora of unnecessary models anymore...
A cheapo MacPro model is more than enough to fill any gaps between the iMac and the Pro line...nothing else.
deputy_doofy
Mar 31, 02:47 PM
Smartphone OS, yes (iPhone vs. Android phones).
iOS as whole (iPads + iPods + iPhones + Apple TV) kills Android numbers though. By LARGE margins.
Fixed that! :D
If Apple FAD goes away, where will Google copy from next?
You are delusional if you think Google is not building upon the Apple FAD.
If there's any truth to the Google Android prototype phone being Blackberry-like, then Google is merely pulling a Microsoft by copying Apple's success. Otherwise, why wouldn't Google have continued down that path?
iOS as whole (iPads + iPods + iPhones + Apple TV) kills Android numbers though. By LARGE margins.
Fixed that! :D
If Apple FAD goes away, where will Google copy from next?
You are delusional if you think Google is not building upon the Apple FAD.
If there's any truth to the Google Android prototype phone being Blackberry-like, then Google is merely pulling a Microsoft by copying Apple's success. Otherwise, why wouldn't Google have continued down that path?
donlphi
Nov 28, 11:04 PM
Universal has already stated that half of the money will be going to the artists.
YEAH RIGHT... here you go EMINEM... here is your .00000000000000017 of a cent you get for this ZUNE. Just trying to share the wealth with ALL THE ARTISTS. Those artists will never see that money. PLEASE. HOW naive could you be?
Microsoft's lack of backbone is going to make us all pay... wait and see.
YEAH RIGHT... here you go EMINEM... here is your .00000000000000017 of a cent you get for this ZUNE. Just trying to share the wealth with ALL THE ARTISTS. Those artists will never see that money. PLEASE. HOW naive could you be?
Microsoft's lack of backbone is going to make us all pay... wait and see.
Rodimus Prime
Feb 28, 08:15 PM
According to the school's website (http://www.chc.edu/News/2011/February/statement_regarding_jim_st_george/), he was not fired as the OP's article suggests. Rather, his contract was not renewed. AFAIK, adjunct instructors do not enjoy the same privileges as tenured professors. If his contract ran out and was simply not renewed, then that's that, unless it can be argued that the college has some legal obligation to offer a new contract.
well assuming what you say is true then every legal right to do so. Hell it could of been that he should never of been hired and HR screwed up and hired someone that did not meet all the requirements. They honor the contract up until it was time to renew it and they did not intend to renew it to fix the mistake.
I will say we can expect a lot of adjunct instructors/professors to be out of work soon because univerisities are being forced to cut cost and those are the first ones to go.
well assuming what you say is true then every legal right to do so. Hell it could of been that he should never of been hired and HR screwed up and hired someone that did not meet all the requirements. They honor the contract up until it was time to renew it and they did not intend to renew it to fix the mistake.
I will say we can expect a lot of adjunct instructors/professors to be out of work soon because univerisities are being forced to cut cost and those are the first ones to go.
MSlaw
Apr 25, 02:54 PM
They would have to prove that the data is being transmitted. And for the purchase price? lol They probably shorted a bunch of apple stock before they did this.
RedTomato
Sep 13, 08:49 AM
Who knows, the hot setup may be a refurb'ed MacPro 2.0Ghz, then drop in better CPUs!
Damn, yes, that would be the ultimate future hot machine - a second hand or refurb Mac Pro 2ghz, - I reckon by October they will about �1200 second hand, then in the new year, down to about �800, get one, then pop in 2 x 4 cores.
Anyone know if the chipset will be pin-compatible with the next generation quad-cores?
Seems we are stuck as far as increasing MHZ goes, 3ghz seems to be near the realistic limit. Now we're just adding more and more cores in. How many cores will be the feasible limit?
After that, what will be the next method of radically increasing computing throughput?
Damn, yes, that would be the ultimate future hot machine - a second hand or refurb Mac Pro 2ghz, - I reckon by October they will about �1200 second hand, then in the new year, down to about �800, get one, then pop in 2 x 4 cores.
Anyone know if the chipset will be pin-compatible with the next generation quad-cores?
Seems we are stuck as far as increasing MHZ goes, 3ghz seems to be near the realistic limit. Now we're just adding more and more cores in. How many cores will be the feasible limit?
After that, what will be the next method of radically increasing computing throughput?
PeterQVenkman
Apr 27, 09:06 AM
Because they hoped people will grow up and educate themselfs. That never happened obviously.
Obviously. ;)
Obviously. ;)
stephenli
Nov 28, 08:21 PM
If this happens, I will proudly use Bit Torrent and pirate all Universal music that I want. Right now I use itunes because the price scheme is perfect. Universal is making a big mistake.
Yes, ppl pay for their music, how come we should also pay them by purchasing an iPod?!
by the way, I still havent purchase any song in iTunes Store under Universal music label....then WHY SHOULD THEY CHARGE IT ON IPOD?!
Yes, ppl pay for their music, how come we should also pay them by purchasing an iPod?!
by the way, I still havent purchase any song in iTunes Store under Universal music label....then WHY SHOULD THEY CHARGE IT ON IPOD?!
Multimedia
Jul 15, 05:15 AM
I prefer the Simpsons' parody of that cartoon:
"...and I'll make Ted Kennedy pay, if he fights back I'll say that he's gay."
But seriously, the $1799 price point is a step in the right direction. If we could get it down to $1599 or <gasp> $1499, then that would be the de facto mini tower so many have clamored for. I would like a redesigned case, but that'll come eventually.
Sometimes the right price can make a person forget about what might have been.We have that already on the Refurbished page. :) Dual Core 2GHz G5 is only $1699 there. Quad only $2799. So your dream of $1499 will come when the 2GHz Core 2 Duo Mac Pro hits the refurb page - which, according to recent history, should happen before Christmas.I believe that the MacBook was on the refurb page in around 3-4 weeks. The iMac Core Duo took AGES though.Yes MacBook broke the speed record for shift to the refurb page in record time. Right now everything is up there except the 17" MacBook Pros. My Quad made it there in only 3 months last Winter.
"...and I'll make Ted Kennedy pay, if he fights back I'll say that he's gay."
But seriously, the $1799 price point is a step in the right direction. If we could get it down to $1599 or <gasp> $1499, then that would be the de facto mini tower so many have clamored for. I would like a redesigned case, but that'll come eventually.
Sometimes the right price can make a person forget about what might have been.We have that already on the Refurbished page. :) Dual Core 2GHz G5 is only $1699 there. Quad only $2799. So your dream of $1499 will come when the 2GHz Core 2 Duo Mac Pro hits the refurb page - which, according to recent history, should happen before Christmas.I believe that the MacBook was on the refurb page in around 3-4 weeks. The iMac Core Duo took AGES though.Yes MacBook broke the speed record for shift to the refurb page in record time. Right now everything is up there except the 17" MacBook Pros. My Quad made it there in only 3 months last Winter.
FoxHoundADAM
Apr 11, 12:06 PM
There are a number of factors that would make a later release make sense. They probably want to converge the Verizon and AT&T hardware, plus wait for iOS 5 to be ready. The release of Lion could also play a small part.
I think everyone making the (pretty much insane) comments that this spells the end of the iPhone's dominance should wait and see what iOS 5 looks like and how the iPhone 5 takes advantage of it.
You are right, we should wait to see iOS 5 before any major conclusions are drawn about the market future but I tell you what, after playing with an Inspire and and Evo all weekend you realize how old and dated iOS4 looks.
Apple really needs to make some significant changes to iOS5 to bring me back this time.
I think everyone making the (pretty much insane) comments that this spells the end of the iPhone's dominance should wait and see what iOS 5 looks like and how the iPhone 5 takes advantage of it.
You are right, we should wait to see iOS 5 before any major conclusions are drawn about the market future but I tell you what, after playing with an Inspire and and Evo all weekend you realize how old and dated iOS4 looks.
Apple really needs to make some significant changes to iOS5 to bring me back this time.
k995
Apr 20, 02:03 PM
Who says? Some people refer to the Samsung F700, but that was shown for the first time a month after the iPhone, and released about five months after the iPhone. (Faked images by Android fanboys won't count in court).
LG prada was shown before iphone was shown. And it shares lenty of things with the iphone that was released later.
LG prada was shown before iphone was shown. And it shares lenty of things with the iphone that was released later.
aafuss1
Aug 6, 05:31 PM
Why sell a new keyboard for front row, if you can sell a new Mac to the same person? Including the sensor in the Cinema Displays would enable Apple to sell more of their display, on which they probably have a very good profit margin (when you compare to other manufacturers).
They could also just put it into the tower. Even if that is under the desk, it might not be that much of a problem. In my experience the sensor responds very nicely to the remote even if the line of sight between them is somewhat obstructed.
However the best solution I think, was suggested by someone on these forums. I don't know, whether it has been quoted here already, because I did not go through all the messages. This poster suggested to combine the sensor with an external iSight. That could be connected to any monitor and would probably have a good IR reception because of beeing on top of the monitor and thus very exposed.
Apple would make the IR and iSight work on XP-first under Boot Camp and on PC's
They could also just put it into the tower. Even if that is under the desk, it might not be that much of a problem. In my experience the sensor responds very nicely to the remote even if the line of sight between them is somewhat obstructed.
However the best solution I think, was suggested by someone on these forums. I don't know, whether it has been quoted here already, because I did not go through all the messages. This poster suggested to combine the sensor with an external iSight. That could be connected to any monitor and would probably have a good IR reception because of beeing on top of the monitor and thus very exposed.
Apple would make the IR and iSight work on XP-first under Boot Camp and on PC's
jholzner
Jul 27, 03:54 PM
Maybe not way too low, but a bit low, especially when you compare specs to the $799 mini. The problem with MAC by itself as a name is that people will ask "what kind of mac" and the response is "Mac". It's a bad slapstick routine. It's like Ford selling a car called the Ford.
Actually, it'd be like Ford selling a car named Model. Instead, they used to use Model-T etc. What model is it? It's a T model. What Mac is it? it's a mini...and i(Mac) etc.
Actually, it'd be like Ford selling a car named Model. Instead, they used to use Model-T etc. What model is it? It's a T model. What Mac is it? it's a mini...and i(Mac) etc.
Simiber
Apr 25, 01:54 PM
I'm not from the US so if someone with some legal background over there could point out to me how this would work..? Where I'm from you have to have suffered damages in order to sue someone, otherwise a government regulator would just impose a fine on the company or require them to stop what they are doing..? How have these people (who are suing apple) suffered losses as a result of this apparent spying technology..?
cult hero
Mar 31, 09:58 PM
What he said was spot on. Gruber is the archetypical Apple sycophant, second only to Andy Ifatso from MacBreak Weekly.
No, what he said wasn't spot on. Gruber's a Mac fan and someone I would go so far as to call a "defender of the faith." That's pretty accurate. Saying Gruber would "eat Steve Job's ***** if he could" as just gross. I don't mind if someone says it, but when calling someone else biased, giving a raging response like that does make you look any better.
Of course, hating on virtually anything Apple does or anyone who likes/follows them appears to be the trendy thing to do around here.
No, what he said wasn't spot on. Gruber's a Mac fan and someone I would go so far as to call a "defender of the faith." That's pretty accurate. Saying Gruber would "eat Steve Job's ***** if he could" as just gross. I don't mind if someone says it, but when calling someone else biased, giving a raging response like that does make you look any better.
Of course, hating on virtually anything Apple does or anyone who likes/follows them appears to be the trendy thing to do around here.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق