kainjow
Sep 19, 11:35 AM
As for me, they have 2 more weeks of my patience before I revert back to my PC days. I'm tired of getting made fun of by my PC Geek friends while I play on my outdated G4 PB.
I'm beginning to believe my friends when they say that Apple pats their own backs for crap that PC makers created a year ago.
If you want to switch back to a PC, no one's stopping you.
But realize, using a PC vs a Mac isn't about the hardware - it's about the software. True, G4's suck and are slow, and should have been given the boot YEARS ago. But it's not Apple's fault for you sticking with it. You should have at LEAST upgraded to the MBP when it was initially launched. How is the Merom update going to be THAT much better than the current MBP?
I'm beginning to believe my friends when they say that Apple pats their own backs for crap that PC makers created a year ago.
If you want to switch back to a PC, no one's stopping you.
But realize, using a PC vs a Mac isn't about the hardware - it's about the software. True, G4's suck and are slow, and should have been given the boot YEARS ago. But it's not Apple's fault for you sticking with it. You should have at LEAST upgraded to the MBP when it was initially launched. How is the Merom update going to be THAT much better than the current MBP?
relimw
Sep 13, 12:36 PM
How much more 'blind' do you want it? All the programmer has to do at this point is use multiple threads. Even if they don't, multiple cores will be automatically used for system and other processes.
Splitting one thread so that it ran cocurent with itself is a recipie for massive trouble. Mac OS X is about as blind as any system out there for the programmer. There may be some more optimizations that the system could make in it's own handling of multiprocessing, but from a programmer's perspective it doesn't matter how many cores the system has. (Unless you really want it to.)
Programming in pthreads is a bear (at least to me) an easier method would be nice. However, when I was looking up something today I came across OpenMP (http://www.openmp.org/) which seems to greatly simply setting up threads and the like. I suppose I was just thinking of run-time parallelization.
Splitting one thread so that it ran cocurent with itself is a recipie for massive trouble. Mac OS X is about as blind as any system out there for the programmer. There may be some more optimizations that the system could make in it's own handling of multiprocessing, but from a programmer's perspective it doesn't matter how many cores the system has. (Unless you really want it to.)
Programming in pthreads is a bear (at least to me) an easier method would be nice. However, when I was looking up something today I came across OpenMP (http://www.openmp.org/) which seems to greatly simply setting up threads and the like. I suppose I was just thinking of run-time parallelization.
ChrisTX
Apr 8, 05:27 AM
Obviously you know little about retail and accounting.
Granted I work in a different type of retail, it seems illogical to lose a sale at any cost.
Granted I work in a different type of retail, it seems illogical to lose a sale at any cost.
DaveN
Apr 6, 08:07 PM
ULV CPUs (17W) will go to 11.6". The TDP of 320M is not known but 9400M has TDP of 12W so it is quite safe to assume that the TDP is similar to that. That means current 11.6" MBA has TDP of 22W (includes CPU, GPU, chipset) while SB 11.6" MBA would have a TDP of 21W (17W for the CPU and ~4W for the PCH).
13" will go with LV CPUs (25W). Again, currently it has 17W for the CPU and 12W for 320M. That's 29W. 25W CPU and ~4W for PCH gives you the same 29W.
11.6" - Core i5-2537M (option for Core i7-2657M)
13.3" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
Let's add a third model
15" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
That would give extra battery room, running time, and room for an extra port.
I'd go for that as I could use a little more screen area.
13" will go with LV CPUs (25W). Again, currently it has 17W for the CPU and 12W for 320M. That's 29W. 25W CPU and ~4W for PCH gives you the same 29W.
11.6" - Core i5-2537M (option for Core i7-2657M)
13.3" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
Let's add a third model
15" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
That would give extra battery room, running time, and room for an extra port.
I'd go for that as I could use a little more screen area.
BJNY
Aug 23, 11:05 AM
If you're willing, you could start up from the Hardware Test disc, and run the test which makes the fans go non-stop except for the rearmost fans.
Temp widget http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/status/istatnano.html
Temp widget http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/status/istatnano.html
notjustjay
Apr 8, 12:13 AM
I wouldn't be surprised. The quota explanation was given already, but they might also be holding back stock of the cheaper models in order to drive more sales of the higher end ones. "Oh, you wanted the 16 gig wifi model? Sorry, all sold out. But we do have this lovely 64 gig 3G version. If you really want the iPad 2, this is your big chance... it's only a little bit more..."
That happened to me, almost, when I bought the original iPad from Best Buy here in Canada on our launch day last year. The guy almost smirked when he said, sorry, the 16 gig ones were all sold out, but they had plenty of the 64 gig models. Luckily I persisted and he managed to find one more 16 gig, the last one! How lucky was that! :rolleyes:
That happened to me, almost, when I bought the original iPad from Best Buy here in Canada on our launch day last year. The guy almost smirked when he said, sorry, the 16 gig ones were all sold out, but they had plenty of the 64 gig models. Luckily I persisted and he managed to find one more 16 gig, the last one! How lucky was that! :rolleyes:
notjustjay
Sep 19, 10:57 AM
why does anyone need to justify to you why they want 64-bit computing?
My demanding you to give me a reason has about the same weight as all the people in this thread (and many others) demanding Apple provide them with the machine they think they needed yesterday.
My demanding you to give me a reason has about the same weight as all the people in this thread (and many others) demanding Apple provide them with the machine they think they needed yesterday.
JGowan
Jul 15, 02:09 PM
Man if they put the power supply on the top that would just be insanely stupid.-markThat's just some guy's rendition who knows a little about Adobe software. Certainly not Jonathan Ive's work, nor will remotely look like that.
reallynotnick
Jul 20, 08:23 AM
Anyone else think this is getting out of hand? Two cores, great improvement. Four cores, ehh it's faster but Joe can't tell. Eight cores, now thats just stupid.
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram :p (ok it will be at least a GB).
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram :p (ok it will be at least a GB).
Liske
Aug 17, 02:42 PM
I have a new 3.0 Intel- just letting you know they are not as close as Rob's test under real world performance. Adobe camera raw really screamed on my G5 and is noticibly slower and a bit buggy on my new Mac Pro. Start up is alot slower, etc, etc. He only tested MP aware processes which isn't the whole picture.
The Photo Retouch artist test puts the Mac Pro 3.0 about 33% slower than the quad G5- but I think that test is skewered to the G5s liking. I think it's somewhere in the real world realm of 12% slower than my G5 quad. Not quite as good under Rosetta [5%?] that Rob posts, but not quite as bad as some other tester's results. The finder and other apps are noticebly faster, even against the fast quad.
I went for the mac pro as a web designer able to run windoze now. CS2 gets some but not alot of excersize. Other comparisons- the storage is awesome, super easy, super quiet. This machine is about 75% the noise of my G5, add the quiet firmtek 2 drive SATA i ran with the quad, and the Mac Pro is about 50% quieter. [By the way if anyone needs a 2 drive firmtek external SATA II case with PCIe card and cables, it is looking for a new home now. It was a great case for the g5 and is about 6 months old- http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/articles/firmtek/2en2/]
My 2 cents!
mac Pro 3.0
3bg ram
2 x 2 drive stripe raids
Std graphics card.
The Photo Retouch artist test puts the Mac Pro 3.0 about 33% slower than the quad G5- but I think that test is skewered to the G5s liking. I think it's somewhere in the real world realm of 12% slower than my G5 quad. Not quite as good under Rosetta [5%?] that Rob posts, but not quite as bad as some other tester's results. The finder and other apps are noticebly faster, even against the fast quad.
I went for the mac pro as a web designer able to run windoze now. CS2 gets some but not alot of excersize. Other comparisons- the storage is awesome, super easy, super quiet. This machine is about 75% the noise of my G5, add the quiet firmtek 2 drive SATA i ran with the quad, and the Mac Pro is about 50% quieter. [By the way if anyone needs a 2 drive firmtek external SATA II case with PCIe card and cables, it is looking for a new home now. It was a great case for the g5 and is about 6 months old- http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/articles/firmtek/2en2/]
My 2 cents!
mac Pro 3.0
3bg ram
2 x 2 drive stripe raids
Std graphics card.
emotion
Jul 20, 09:05 AM
Where you are going to see the difference is when you multi-task.
For Example: Burn a Blueray disk, render a FinalCut Pro movie, download your digital camera RAW files into Adobe Lightroom and run a batch, and watch your favorite movie from the iTunes Movie Store all without a single hiccup.
You're going to run into the hard disk being the bottle neck then. In principle though I agree with you.
For Example: Burn a Blueray disk, render a FinalCut Pro movie, download your digital camera RAW files into Adobe Lightroom and run a batch, and watch your favorite movie from the iTunes Movie Store all without a single hiccup.
You're going to run into the hard disk being the bottle neck then. In principle though I agree with you.
chrmjenkins
Apr 6, 12:00 PM
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Are you comparing it to a MBA with 320M or a 13" MBP with 320M? The latter is unfair because it is not analogous to the CPU and GPU speed in an ultra-portable like the series 9 or MBP.
Are you smoking something? Sure the IGP used in SB 13" MBP might get some fudged numbers by those who report for Apple, but you think the ULV SB IGP is going to even compare to the 320m on any level??? Huh? You are far smarter than that.
A lot of people using the 13" MBP in comparison when there are almost no similaries.
I don't believe a ULV CPU gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe this CPU in the story gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe Apple is dumb enough to ruin the MBA brand AGAIN with Intel's IGP at this time. I don't believe that what Apple does in the 13" MBP has any correlation with the MBA because the IGP is different. I believe when Apple and Nvidia said Apple will use the Nvidia chipset and GPU for a long time they were specifically citing the MBA, as it make no sense for the MBA to be so challenged as to get such an inferior design leading to tragic real world results.
In 2012 the MBA will get an update when it actually makes sense. People waiting for a ULV SB chip in the 13" MBA will be waiting a long time. People waiting or expecting SB IGP to even compare in ULV variants will be waiting forever as they cannot match the Nvidia offering with the underclocked IGP.
This story is ridiculous as written.
Just exactly what end use do you imagine being crippled in the MBA by going from a 320M to a HD3000 IGP? Surely you don't suggest that the number of people gaming on the MBA and who demand that performance is sufficient enough to determine the fate of the product line or even approach appreciable numbers in sales.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Are you comparing it to a MBA with 320M or a 13" MBP with 320M? The latter is unfair because it is not analogous to the CPU and GPU speed in an ultra-portable like the series 9 or MBP.
Are you smoking something? Sure the IGP used in SB 13" MBP might get some fudged numbers by those who report for Apple, but you think the ULV SB IGP is going to even compare to the 320m on any level??? Huh? You are far smarter than that.
A lot of people using the 13" MBP in comparison when there are almost no similaries.
I don't believe a ULV CPU gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe this CPU in the story gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe Apple is dumb enough to ruin the MBA brand AGAIN with Intel's IGP at this time. I don't believe that what Apple does in the 13" MBP has any correlation with the MBA because the IGP is different. I believe when Apple and Nvidia said Apple will use the Nvidia chipset and GPU for a long time they were specifically citing the MBA, as it make no sense for the MBA to be so challenged as to get such an inferior design leading to tragic real world results.
In 2012 the MBA will get an update when it actually makes sense. People waiting for a ULV SB chip in the 13" MBA will be waiting a long time. People waiting or expecting SB IGP to even compare in ULV variants will be waiting forever as they cannot match the Nvidia offering with the underclocked IGP.
This story is ridiculous as written.
Just exactly what end use do you imagine being crippled in the MBA by going from a 320M to a HD3000 IGP? Surely you don't suggest that the number of people gaming on the MBA and who demand that performance is sufficient enough to determine the fate of the product line or even approach appreciable numbers in sales.
NebulaClash
Apr 27, 09:53 AM
And I'm sure when the next Apple-gate story gets created, the blind fanbois will jump to their defense. :rolleyes:
And once again the Apple fans will turn out to have been correct.
And once again the Apple fans will turn out to have been correct.
Whyren
Nov 28, 07:06 PM
Sounds like trying to get royalties off of blank CDs by selling "Music CD-Rs" at a higher cost.
Apple could just let them distribute Universal-branded "Music-Ready" iPods that are set at $50 more than any standard iPod. See how well that'll go for 'em.
Apple could just let them distribute Universal-branded "Music-Ready" iPods that are set at $50 more than any standard iPod. See how well that'll go for 'em.
balamw
Aug 7, 04:15 PM
This is not what Apple is doing here, as they are simply storing the old version of the file on the backup system.
Which takes us back to the behavior that was the default on VAX systems running VMS 20 years ago... Microsoft is implementing something similar in Vista as well. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060730-7383.html
B
Which takes us back to the behavior that was the default on VAX systems running VMS 20 years ago... Microsoft is implementing something similar in Vista as well. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060730-7383.html
B
nagromme
Jul 14, 03:07 PM
Leave the Xeons for the PowerMacs, but introduce some mini-tower machines with Conroe chips - they would fit nicely between the iMac and PowerMac.
Yes--whatever the name, whatever the case size, a low-to-midrange tower is needed to fill a gap in the lineup.
It could even just be a lower-spec'd Mac Pro than the ones posted in this article. Just something that allows a choice of display--and GPU--for non high-end buyers.
I think it's only a matter of time before this gap (and the "small MacBook Pro" gap) are filled. After all, Apple did fill the bottom-end headless gap (Mac Mini) which once seemed impossible!
Yes--whatever the name, whatever the case size, a low-to-midrange tower is needed to fill a gap in the lineup.
It could even just be a lower-spec'd Mac Pro than the ones posted in this article. Just something that allows a choice of display--and GPU--for non high-end buyers.
I think it's only a matter of time before this gap (and the "small MacBook Pro" gap) are filled. After all, Apple did fill the bottom-end headless gap (Mac Mini) which once seemed impossible!
yfile
Apr 6, 04:42 AM
.. I never use it, but I use Motion and Soundtrack a lot and I need true 3D in Motion, even simply 3D. I need no crashing Motion. I need optimised and 64-bit Motion. I want it now, please!
bad03xtreme
Apr 25, 02:21 PM
More of my tax dollars hard at work. :rolleyes:
wmmk
Jul 14, 06:07 PM
the question still remains--will the powermacs be able to use standard, off the shelf, pc video cards?
i know that you couldn't do so in the power architecture due to the bios irregularities. now that they're using efi, does this still mean we have to buy mac based cards? because that's really the question nobody seems to ask and nobody seems to have an answer for.
what this new mac workstation will mean is the chance to upgrade your macs based on commodity parts. no more mac tax for hardware. i remember when the radeon 9700 was king, the price was around $299 for pc version and $399 for mac version.
think about this, the ability to upgrade processor, video card, and sound card without having to pay the apple tax.
that's what it really comes down to. the speculative "good" version of the mac pro has a so-so video card, but it's not really worth the $600 more just to get a 1800, i'd rather just get the 1600 and upgrade on my own.
oh, btw, i did some of my own investigations and found this site:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/7_series_techspecs.html
which may mean that the standard cards are compatible with mac os x now.
i'v actually heard that with a normal PC, you can make almost any NVIDIA card compatible with mac, but it takes a bit of geekery and hackery.
i know that you couldn't do so in the power architecture due to the bios irregularities. now that they're using efi, does this still mean we have to buy mac based cards? because that's really the question nobody seems to ask and nobody seems to have an answer for.
what this new mac workstation will mean is the chance to upgrade your macs based on commodity parts. no more mac tax for hardware. i remember when the radeon 9700 was king, the price was around $299 for pc version and $399 for mac version.
think about this, the ability to upgrade processor, video card, and sound card without having to pay the apple tax.
that's what it really comes down to. the speculative "good" version of the mac pro has a so-so video card, but it's not really worth the $600 more just to get a 1800, i'd rather just get the 1600 and upgrade on my own.
oh, btw, i did some of my own investigations and found this site:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/7_series_techspecs.html
which may mean that the standard cards are compatible with mac os x now.
i'v actually heard that with a normal PC, you can make almost any NVIDIA card compatible with mac, but it takes a bit of geekery and hackery.
andiwm2003
Apr 11, 11:36 AM
i've been eligible for an upgrade since November and my contract ended in March I think.
But what really matters is that my 3GS shows low battery life and I don't know if it holds up till next year.
Delaying the release date would suck because many users feel they "need" to upgrade after their contract is up and the they feel they are "cheated" if they have to stay on a contract for more than 2 years without upgrading.
From a marketing perspective this would be a bad move.
But what really matters is that my 3GS shows low battery life and I don't know if it holds up till next year.
Delaying the release date would suck because many users feel they "need" to upgrade after their contract is up and the they feel they are "cheated" if they have to stay on a contract for more than 2 years without upgrading.
From a marketing perspective this would be a bad move.
shawnce
Nov 28, 06:52 PM
Many years ago a media levy was passed in the United States that applies a "tax" to "consumer digital audio" media (CD-R blanks, DAT, etc.) with the proceeds going to music industry/artists. The justification was to offset losses due to illegal copying of music in digital form (generational loseless copies). This to date hasn't been expanded to include devices like the iPod (at least I don't recall that taking place).
This appears to be an attempt to expand that levy...
Note in Canada they have a similar levy that "taxes" all digital media that could store audio (not just "consumer digital audio" media) but IIRC it fell short of being applied to the iPod as well. Also many many other countries have similar laws.
In my opinion these types of levies should never have been enacted into law... they presume customers will engage in criminal activity and punish them before hand. :(
To bad the wrong precedent was set...
This appears to be an attempt to expand that levy...
Note in Canada they have a similar levy that "taxes" all digital media that could store audio (not just "consumer digital audio" media) but IIRC it fell short of being applied to the iPod as well. Also many many other countries have similar laws.
In my opinion these types of levies should never have been enacted into law... they presume customers will engage in criminal activity and punish them before hand. :(
To bad the wrong precedent was set...
paul4339
Mar 22, 01:00 PM
Unfortunately you're so very right. Until it's in the hand and on the shelves it's vaporware.
...
Yes, I think they should at least have a model that they can 'power on' before they say that it's going to be released on June 8 (that's just over 2 months away to get it working and out the door!)
P.
...
Yes, I think they should at least have a model that they can 'power on' before they say that it's going to be released on June 8 (that's just over 2 months away to get it working and out the door!)
P.
solarguy17
Apr 6, 01:29 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I wonder if that accounts for the fact that people access the store with the demos at stores.
When I played with one at BB I acessed the store and dl'd a free app to see it actually in action.
I wonder if that accounts for the fact that people access the store with the demos at stores.
When I played with one at BB I acessed the store and dl'd a free app to see it actually in action.
ethana
Mar 22, 12:53 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Uhhh... screen size?
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Uhhh... screen size?
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق