Thunderhawks
Apr 6, 04:35 PM
Don't understand that there needs to be a pissing contest about Xoom OR ipad.
Why are the Xoom guys even here on a Mac site, to tell us THEIR device is better?
Let's even assume they are right.
Go buy your Xoom and be happy if it does what you want No harm, no foul.
The Apple users buy Apple until something better comes along also as long as it does what they want.
They love the possible integration with their other devices and when that comes to Xoom or something else is better they will switch.
Technology pace is amazingly fast and nobody knows what is next.
Why are the Xoom guys even here on a Mac site, to tell us THEIR device is better?
Let's even assume they are right.
Go buy your Xoom and be happy if it does what you want No harm, no foul.
The Apple users buy Apple until something better comes along also as long as it does what they want.
They love the possible integration with their other devices and when that comes to Xoom or something else is better they will switch.
Technology pace is amazingly fast and nobody knows what is next.
sysiphus
Mar 21, 02:39 PM
It is in fact somewhat problematic. At present, the government is basically run by moneyed interests that supply the funding needed for the candidates to get into office (so that they can shower favours upon their benefactors and sponsors). This is the sixth check/balance, which was not literally codified but has become standard via legal precedent. Those of us who feel that real change is called for still support the (p)resident because he is the one least likely to enact tragic "progress". The system is, nonetheless, dreadfully broken. The idiots that I hold in serious contention are either marginalized into submission or holding seats of power, a situation that serves only to amplify our division, to our detriment.
I see your point. Personally, I'd been hoping Obama might hold ground on issues such as torture/surveillance/getting out of wars, and was fully prepared to accept fiscal policies I would hate (as a conservative--NOT a Republican, mind you) if we'd get some of the aforementioned issues. Gave up on any hope of that when PATRIOT got extended, though...on a few social issues (gay rights) Obama has distinguished himself admirably from his predecessor. However, in the big picture, we've still got a shill for big business and big government/brother, who is overextending the American military with conflicts in which we cannot afford to participate. /end rant
I see your point. Personally, I'd been hoping Obama might hold ground on issues such as torture/surveillance/getting out of wars, and was fully prepared to accept fiscal policies I would hate (as a conservative--NOT a Republican, mind you) if we'd get some of the aforementioned issues. Gave up on any hope of that when PATRIOT got extended, though...on a few social issues (gay rights) Obama has distinguished himself admirably from his predecessor. However, in the big picture, we've still got a shill for big business and big government/brother, who is overextending the American military with conflicts in which we cannot afford to participate. /end rant
Multimedia
Aug 17, 11:43 AM
My main interest is in FCP the FCP results.
On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?The 2GHz Mac Pro is 25% slower while the price is only 8.75% lower when you also lower the order $90 by making the HD a 160 instead of the 250 stock. 300GB SATA/300 drives are only $80 now. So I think it isn't really worth ordering the 2GHz model for that much less power for that little less money. For most of Final Cut Pro work you will not need the fancy video card. Motion is tne only thing that ATI card will help with. If you won't be using Motion a lot, the stock Mac Pro card will be fine.
The 3GHz model is just the opposite - 12.78% more power for 33% more money. Time is money has to be the reason for ordering the 3GHz model.
On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?The 2GHz Mac Pro is 25% slower while the price is only 8.75% lower when you also lower the order $90 by making the HD a 160 instead of the 250 stock. 300GB SATA/300 drives are only $80 now. So I think it isn't really worth ordering the 2GHz model for that much less power for that little less money. For most of Final Cut Pro work you will not need the fancy video card. Motion is tne only thing that ATI card will help with. If you won't be using Motion a lot, the stock Mac Pro card will be fine.
The 3GHz model is just the opposite - 12.78% more power for 33% more money. Time is money has to be the reason for ordering the 3GHz model.
steadysignal
Apr 12, 07:51 AM
i actually dont mind this. i'd like to enjoy the 4 a little longer...
illegalprelude
Jul 14, 09:25 PM
im with the others, im not jumping on the ship till they offer me Blue-Ray. Till then, I got everything I need in my 1.6 :cool: :D
grum
Sep 19, 06:39 AM
What's funny is that even if new MacBooks and MacBook Pros were released tomorrow with the newer Merom chip, 90% of you folks in here wouldn't notice a difference in your daily computing. You would not say "OMG, this 64 bit processing and extra .16Ghz speed is AWESOME!!! I can't BELIEVE I lived without this for so long!!!" You wouldn't even notice unless someone told you.
Sorry but I've heard this so many times it gets pretty annoying. Dont assume to know what ppl want to use their Macbooks for. I want to use it for music production which can be very intensive on the processor, other people for graphics etc where a few seconds shaved off processing times when added up many times can make quite a difference to productivity.
Also, when the new chips come out it will instantly knock a chunk off the resell value - yes this is always the way with technology but buying when an update is coming soon seems silly.
Sorry but I've heard this so many times it gets pretty annoying. Dont assume to know what ppl want to use their Macbooks for. I want to use it for music production which can be very intensive on the processor, other people for graphics etc where a few seconds shaved off processing times when added up many times can make quite a difference to productivity.
Also, when the new chips come out it will instantly knock a chunk off the resell value - yes this is always the way with technology but buying when an update is coming soon seems silly.
wizard
Mar 26, 10:35 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
It is pretty incredible that the ignorance around Mac OS releases never stops. For one thing if you loose data on a computer, the only person to blame is the one staring at you in the mirror.
Even the whine about nothing worthwhile for the user is a bit old and reflects what we heard about SL. Yet SL on my early 2008 MBP was a drastic improvement for the user right out of the box and just got better with each update. User facing features are the only reason to update, fixes to underlying facilities can go a long way to justifying the software update.
As to the server integration, it hasn't and never will be a product worth $500. It is great that Apple is adding support to the base install but people need to realize a few things. One is that Mac OS is UNIX, people need to get that through their heads. Thus Apples server product only really adds in what is already seen in many UNIX intallations in a base install. Speaking of which much of that functionality is well established open source. Second the pricing of "server" software seems to be tailored to fit the mentality of the corporate world, where they feel they need to pay big bucks for something trivial. It is no wonder that Linux as established itself as a server OS in the SOHO world and at some of the more forward thinking larger corporations. As others have pointed out the basics of UNIX have been around for ages now, very little new territory is being cleared here, thus little justification for up charges on server software.
Finally it is a bit cowardly to avoid the future because you see nothing of value there for you personally. It is frightenly similar to the attitude seen in those that cut their own wrists.
It is pretty incredible that the ignorance around Mac OS releases never stops. For one thing if you loose data on a computer, the only person to blame is the one staring at you in the mirror.
Even the whine about nothing worthwhile for the user is a bit old and reflects what we heard about SL. Yet SL on my early 2008 MBP was a drastic improvement for the user right out of the box and just got better with each update. User facing features are the only reason to update, fixes to underlying facilities can go a long way to justifying the software update.
As to the server integration, it hasn't and never will be a product worth $500. It is great that Apple is adding support to the base install but people need to realize a few things. One is that Mac OS is UNIX, people need to get that through their heads. Thus Apples server product only really adds in what is already seen in many UNIX intallations in a base install. Speaking of which much of that functionality is well established open source. Second the pricing of "server" software seems to be tailored to fit the mentality of the corporate world, where they feel they need to pay big bucks for something trivial. It is no wonder that Linux as established itself as a server OS in the SOHO world and at some of the more forward thinking larger corporations. As others have pointed out the basics of UNIX have been around for ages now, very little new territory is being cleared here, thus little justification for up charges on server software.
Finally it is a bit cowardly to avoid the future because you see nothing of value there for you personally. It is frightenly similar to the attitude seen in those that cut their own wrists.
DisMyMac
Apr 5, 07:11 PM
Is there any hope for good subtitle support? OCR, etc.?
manu chao
Apr 27, 08:56 AM
No they won't. They're not going to delete the DB - they're only storing a week. Did you read the story?
And assume you go to a place you have been a month ago, wouldn't having the database speed things up when you return to that location a month later?
(Though I agree the effect will be very minor, as soon as you land with a plane, the iPhone will start populating that database, thus having the data from a month ago will only be relevant if you need location data right away after landing.)
And assume you go to a place you have been a month ago, wouldn't having the database speed things up when you return to that location a month later?
(Though I agree the effect will be very minor, as soon as you land with a plane, the iPhone will start populating that database, thus having the data from a month ago will only be relevant if you need location data right away after landing.)
gnasher729
Jul 20, 05:12 PM
I think Reverse Hyperthreading will have to be processor-bound, like Hyperthreading. Intel has its mitosis project, so let's hope that works out well!
There is no such thing as "Reverse Hyperthreading". This has been completely debunked.
There is no such thing as "Reverse Hyperthreading". This has been completely debunked.
faroZ06
Apr 27, 08:50 AM
I miss the old Apple where they didn't care if idiots complained. Between changing the bars after the antenna issue, ( all they really did is change the bars to not show a big drop when there was a big drop in reception, as AT&T suggested,) and now nerfing location services DB they just seem to be giving in to idiocracy.
And Tea Party members :D
And Tea Party members :D
john123
Sep 19, 09:35 AM
You can get a real speed boost just by compiling to 64-bit (naturally this depends on the source). The 64-bit benefit will increase over time on the Mac platform. On 64-bit Gentoo I had the chance to compare 32-bit & 64-bit binaries on exactly the same PC, & disagree entirely with your statement. Programs that can take advantage of 64-bit architecture, & are subsequently compiled for it, are definitely something to be desired.
Add grudging 32-bit hanger-ons to the spoiled 13 year olds on here.
Sometimes you can; sometimes not. That depends on a lot of factors. It's not universal. On the cluster we designed at my office with Opterons, we are actually using 32 bit (albeit with some software enhancements) because it came out considerably faster than the 64 bit implementations. So it's not a universal thing.
Add grudging 32-bit hanger-ons to the spoiled 13 year olds on here.
Sometimes you can; sometimes not. That depends on a lot of factors. It's not universal. On the cluster we designed at my office with Opterons, we are actually using 32 bit (albeit with some software enhancements) because it came out considerably faster than the 64 bit implementations. So it's not a universal thing.
adamfilip
Aug 27, 08:53 AM
You're screwing up, intel. We don't want 300 trillion transistors on a 1 nm die. We want longer battery life. Idiots.
I think you are missing the point
just cause a processor has 300 quadrillion transistors doesnt mean it will consume a huge amount of power.
if they released a memron that ran at 200mhz but lasted 24 hrs. would you buy it.. eventho it would be painfully slow?
its hard to balance Performance demands and power consumption
I think you are missing the point
just cause a processor has 300 quadrillion transistors doesnt mean it will consume a huge amount of power.
if they released a memron that ran at 200mhz but lasted 24 hrs. would you buy it.. eventho it would be painfully slow?
its hard to balance Performance demands and power consumption
babyj
Sep 19, 10:14 AM
I don't understand all the hype over the core 2 duo chip vs the core duo chip. They are basically the same chip. You will barely notice any difference with same speed core 2 duo over a same speed core duo.
Even when I've made big processor jumps before I've never noticed any increased performance that made a difference to me. Adding more RAM has made a massive difference though and probably would for a lot of people.
Even when I've made big processor jumps before I've never noticed any increased performance that made a difference to me. Adding more RAM has made a massive difference though and probably would for a lot of people.
Eduardo1971
Apr 6, 10:26 AM
Boy this is great (**deadpan voice**).
Grr.
Want. Refreshed. iMac. NOW!!
:D
Grr.
Want. Refreshed. iMac. NOW!!
:D
UmaThurman
Sep 18, 11:09 PM
Y'all just wait a bit longer. it'll come soon.
Glideslope
Apr 25, 03:50 PM
i would bet anything that these two "customers" happen to also be lawyers.
They just can't earn clean money, always have to rip some one to earn it.
+1 ;)
They just can't earn clean money, always have to rip some one to earn it.
+1 ;)
amin
Aug 19, 09:42 AM
You make good points. I guess we'll learn more as more information becomes available.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Unspeaked
Nov 29, 11:10 AM
You posted a list of artist people will start to illegally copy if Universal starts to tax iPods....
Hey, what they do with the list is their business...
All I was doing was letting the thread know the breadth of Universal's stable!
;)
Hey, what they do with the list is their business...
All I was doing was letting the thread know the breadth of Universal's stable!
;)
SWC
Aug 7, 08:01 PM
great . . . i just get a new macbook with tiger now i'm gonna have to get leopard . . . how much will this put me back?
$129 is history proves true
$129 is history proves true
whoson1st0
Aug 25, 02:58 PM
I had the same problem with their battery recall site. My PB s/n was valid but it said my battery was not.
I tried calling the apple support number provided but every time I pressed '5' to talk to someone about the battery issue, I would get disconnected.
Eventually I reached tech support (after a 30 minute wait, I assume because others were having the same problem as me and also calling tech support) and the analyst said the database of valid batteries was not yet complete and they were telling everyone to check back today (I have not checked yet).
What bothered me, of course, is why couldn't they post this information on the battery support page? Or put it on the message when you call apple support? Instead the message over the phone simply pointed users back to the website, which of course wasn't working, and thus I spent almost an hour wasting my time on something that apple knew wasn't working yet.
I mean sure, this entire incident wasn't the worst thing in the world, but it certainly doesn't raise my confidence in apple support or customer satisfaction.
I tried calling the apple support number provided but every time I pressed '5' to talk to someone about the battery issue, I would get disconnected.
Eventually I reached tech support (after a 30 minute wait, I assume because others were having the same problem as me and also calling tech support) and the analyst said the database of valid batteries was not yet complete and they were telling everyone to check back today (I have not checked yet).
What bothered me, of course, is why couldn't they post this information on the battery support page? Or put it on the message when you call apple support? Instead the message over the phone simply pointed users back to the website, which of course wasn't working, and thus I spent almost an hour wasting my time on something that apple knew wasn't working yet.
I mean sure, this entire incident wasn't the worst thing in the world, but it certainly doesn't raise my confidence in apple support or customer satisfaction.
pika2000
Mar 26, 01:01 AM
Sandy Bridge iMac + Lion. ;)
SandynJosh
Mar 31, 10:40 PM
Thats not at all what this article is saying. The Android project is still going to be "open source".
Uh, yeah...and all animals are equal, but pigs are more equal.
Uh, yeah...and all animals are equal, but pigs are more equal.
mactoday
Apr 6, 11:16 AM
They do:D Speced out 17'' MBP.
Youre totally right though, their notebook displays have been taking backseat to the iOS train. Hell, the iPad3 is gonna have a 2048x1536 display for heavens sake...and they couldnt even give the refreshed 13'' MBP the same res as the months old 13'' MBA. FAIL.
I bet you that you'll never see a iPad with screen resolution like 2048x1536, it's a ****ing nightmare to iOS developers. You don't understand that it's ****ing crazy, iOS interface like MacOS X interface is not scalable. Apple have to change the whole GUI before making this step forward. You know why there is much smaller apps for Android OS that for iOS? Because Adnroid devices have tons of screen resolutions and every ****ing vendor think that this is better but they kill platform with tons of resolutions, it's hard for developers to make apps compatible with all resolutions, again GUI problem.
Youre totally right though, their notebook displays have been taking backseat to the iOS train. Hell, the iPad3 is gonna have a 2048x1536 display for heavens sake...and they couldnt even give the refreshed 13'' MBP the same res as the months old 13'' MBA. FAIL.
I bet you that you'll never see a iPad with screen resolution like 2048x1536, it's a ****ing nightmare to iOS developers. You don't understand that it's ****ing crazy, iOS interface like MacOS X interface is not scalable. Apple have to change the whole GUI before making this step forward. You know why there is much smaller apps for Android OS that for iOS? Because Adnroid devices have tons of screen resolutions and every ****ing vendor think that this is better but they kill platform with tons of resolutions, it's hard for developers to make apps compatible with all resolutions, again GUI problem.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق