Kingsly
Sep 18, 11:05 PM
Of course they're going to refresh the laptops before the holidays. Duh. :rolleyes:
Chundles
Jul 20, 08:36 AM
The Mactopus??
Notice time. I bags it, I said it first, it's MINE!!!
My only...
My Mactopus...
Notice time. I bags it, I said it first, it's MINE!!!
My only...
My Mactopus...
Multimedia
Jul 21, 04:42 PM
Intel's Bensley platform was designed for Dempsey, Woodcrest, and Clovertown families of Xeon processors. So the system components like mobo and memory will remain the same. Any changes will be incremental.
Of course things like Blue Ray and 802.11n may not be offered in the next release but only in Rev 2. Or, they will be cheaper.Interesting. You know links where we can learn more about Bensley?I know you already have a quad-core PowerMac so it makes sense for you to wait .... unless SJ is able to tempt you come WWDC with promise of 2x performance etc. ... :D :DI don't think 2x performance would impress me enough. It's not so much the increase in "performance" as it is the number of cores I care about - definitly waiting for 8 then 16. And there's also the Leopard onboard factor I would like to wait for. And Santa Rosa in the MacBook Pro.
Of course things like Blue Ray and 802.11n may not be offered in the next release but only in Rev 2. Or, they will be cheaper.Interesting. You know links where we can learn more about Bensley?I know you already have a quad-core PowerMac so it makes sense for you to wait .... unless SJ is able to tempt you come WWDC with promise of 2x performance etc. ... :D :DI don't think 2x performance would impress me enough. It's not so much the increase in "performance" as it is the number of cores I care about - definitly waiting for 8 then 16. And there's also the Leopard onboard factor I would like to wait for. And Santa Rosa in the MacBook Pro.
Evangelion
Aug 17, 03:58 AM
But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
There were handful of benchmarks. If we disregard the non-universal apps, we get this:
Xeon is a lot faster in iMovie
In FCP it's a bit faster
in FileMaker it's A LOT faster
in Cinebench it's considerably faster
Are those really such a bad results? The apps that it was slower in (but not by much) were running through emulation, is that a fair comparison?
Looking at the other reviews around the net, it becomes quite obvious that apart from few apps, Mac Pro is considerably faster tham PowerMac. In compiling for example, it walks all over the G5
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
There were handful of benchmarks. If we disregard the non-universal apps, we get this:
Xeon is a lot faster in iMovie
In FCP it's a bit faster
in FileMaker it's A LOT faster
in Cinebench it's considerably faster
Are those really such a bad results? The apps that it was slower in (but not by much) were running through emulation, is that a fair comparison?
Looking at the other reviews around the net, it becomes quite obvious that apart from few apps, Mac Pro is considerably faster tham PowerMac. In compiling for example, it walks all over the G5
Swift
Mar 26, 10:10 PM
This is too fast a release. The copy I got my hands on did seem to be very polished, but there's got to be a time for the devs to find unexpected bugs, and then there's the presumed surprise near the end... some killer appearance and/or feature. Where's Quicktime X as a truly functioning replacement for Quicktime 7? And then, when everything's near gold master, it needs to be looked over by the bigger software developers, to make final adjustments to major upgrades.
I think Lion will get attention, but no release until late summer. iOS 5 will be announced with the announcement of the iPhone 5. Out in July.
The Oracle Saith.
I think Lion will get attention, but no release until late summer. iOS 5 will be announced with the announcement of the iPhone 5. Out in July.
The Oracle Saith.
georgee2face
Mar 22, 02:07 PM
My apologies to the"greens", but these tablets ( and my ipad) will NEVER be a true enterprise product with out some sort of native printing and a FIRST CLASS STYLUS/WRITING APPS. PERIOD.
I use mine in two different business, but it takes drop box, print work-arounds and crude writing apps to use it for business.
I enjoy it for all the other reasosns, but business goes to my MAC AIR.
I use mine in two different business, but it takes drop box, print work-arounds and crude writing apps to use it for business.
I enjoy it for all the other reasosns, but business goes to my MAC AIR.
/Kobe-Zoom-4(IV)-Basketball-Shoes-Black-Purple-Yellow.jpg "Zoom Kobe 4")
jonharris200
Aug 5, 04:55 PM
Can someone confirm my calculations?
The keynote will start 8PM UK time?
No, it's 6pm UK time according to the countdown clock on the macrumors homepage.
The keynote will start 8PM UK time?
No, it's 6pm UK time according to the countdown clock on the macrumors homepage.
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.
mark28
Apr 20, 05:47 AM
Sure, but did Samsung patent it?
It's not about 'who copied who?', but 'who copied after who patented?'
All the corporations mentioned in this thread are dinosaurs and know what type of business they are in. If they fail to patent their (good) ideas than it's a given that someone else eventually will. Doesn't matter whether we or anyone thinks that's right or wrong. It's normal business practice. Any corporation thet develops products in a hot contested market like this and doesn't play this game will lose business or cash.
Samsung didn't stole it from Apple since they were first with the design, end of story.
Samsung can claim Apple stole their design and patent it. That's fraud right since it's not their own idea?
It's not about 'who copied who?', but 'who copied after who patented?'
All the corporations mentioned in this thread are dinosaurs and know what type of business they are in. If they fail to patent their (good) ideas than it's a given that someone else eventually will. Doesn't matter whether we or anyone thinks that's right or wrong. It's normal business practice. Any corporation thet develops products in a hot contested market like this and doesn't play this game will lose business or cash.
Samsung didn't stole it from Apple since they were first with the design, end of story.
Samsung can claim Apple stole their design and patent it. That's fraud right since it's not their own idea?
grue
Apr 12, 01:26 AM
Oh, and here's one I just ran into that reminds me:
Is it so much to ask to have it go to and from the background cleanly? Christ in a cartoon, you'd think backgrounding the application is a huge exercise in resource allocation by how long it takes to bring back all the windows sometimes, if they reappear at all. FCP is bad enough about this sometimes, but Compressor is even worse.
Minor, sure, but annoying as hell.
Is it so much to ask to have it go to and from the background cleanly? Christ in a cartoon, you'd think backgrounding the application is a huge exercise in resource allocation by how long it takes to bring back all the windows sometimes, if they reappear at all. FCP is bad enough about this sometimes, but Compressor is even worse.
Minor, sure, but annoying as hell.
atari1356
Jul 27, 09:51 AM
Yes. I believe people who have gotten their hands on Core 2 Duo beta chips have put them in their mini's with no difference (except a massive speed boost)
It's no problem in the Mini's, however, in both the MacBook and MacBook Pro the chips are soldered onto the logic board... so they're not upgradeable.
(although I expect some company like Daystar will eventually offer a "mail your computer in and we'll upgrade the processor" service like they do the PowerBook G4's)
It's no problem in the Mini's, however, in both the MacBook and MacBook Pro the chips are soldered onto the logic board... so they're not upgradeable.
(although I expect some company like Daystar will eventually offer a "mail your computer in and we'll upgrade the processor" service like they do the PowerBook G4's)
Blue Fox
Apr 25, 01:56 PM
I dont understand how anyone would get the info from your phone.
And even if they did, what would they do with it? Go to my friends house and come visit me at my address? All that information has been in the local phone book for decades.
Not to mention, doesn't the file only store the nearest cell tower and/or WiFi network? I've even read that it can be 2-5 miles aways from where you were even at, hardly the "tracking" people make it out to be.
And even if they did, what would they do with it? Go to my friends house and come visit me at my address? All that information has been in the local phone book for decades.
Not to mention, doesn't the file only store the nearest cell tower and/or WiFi network? I've even read that it can be 2-5 miles aways from where you were even at, hardly the "tracking" people make it out to be.
AppleScruff1
Apr 19, 08:37 PM
So when is apple going to sue over the letter "i"?
Or how about suing companies for using certain shapes?
This kind of garbage just makes them look petty, just like the youtube videos demonstrating other phone antenna problems.
Motorola had iDEN well before Apple had an iPhone. Apple copied the i just like they did the Beatle's logo. They are he innovators of copying. But it's ok when they do it.
Or how about suing companies for using certain shapes?
This kind of garbage just makes them look petty, just like the youtube videos demonstrating other phone antenna problems.
Motorola had iDEN well before Apple had an iPhone. Apple copied the i just like they did the Beatle's logo. They are he innovators of copying. But it's ok when they do it.
srxtr
Apr 11, 01:19 PM
You guys know the average Joe don't go shopping for a new smart phone every other month?
This is a big deal to some of you guys only because you obsess over this topic almost daily.
This is a big deal to some of you guys only because you obsess over this topic almost daily.
rdowns
Apr 27, 01:26 PM
I now know that the certificate is a copy, and no, I don't trust President Obama.
Shouldn't you be complaining the he didn't do enough to acknowledge Easter? :rolleyes:
Shouldn't you be complaining the he didn't do enough to acknowledge Easter? :rolleyes:
deannnnn
Jun 9, 08:44 AM
I have a feeling that those trade-in prices will be substantially reduced once the iPhone 4 is released.
bushman4
Apr 11, 04:39 PM
Dont believe the rumors from these small brokerage analysts. Possible that Iphone5 won't launch in Juyly but not probable.
daneoni
Aug 26, 04:13 PM
That doesn't make sense, marketing wise. If they do anything to the MacBooks and iMacs they would at least bump their speeds. It doesn't matter f the 2GHz Merom chip is faster than the 2GHz Yonah chip, the consumers don't give a crap about the chip... they want to see "them GHz numbers" go up.
Well unless they use Conroe in iMac thats how it will be. They'll just tell you the new machines are using intel's new Core 2 Duo (64 bit computing) chips. Apple WILL differentiate their pro laptops so the 2.16 & 2.33 GHz combo is a given. Maybe, just maybe, they might bump the mini to 1.83 and 1.66 on its low end. The imacs will use 1.83 & 2.00 there is just no other option apparent to me because the 17" & 20" will also be differentiated. The macbooks may become 2.00GHz only across the board but even that route is questionable.
Well unless they use Conroe in iMac thats how it will be. They'll just tell you the new machines are using intel's new Core 2 Duo (64 bit computing) chips. Apple WILL differentiate their pro laptops so the 2.16 & 2.33 GHz combo is a given. Maybe, just maybe, they might bump the mini to 1.83 and 1.66 on its low end. The imacs will use 1.83 & 2.00 there is just no other option apparent to me because the 17" & 20" will also be differentiated. The macbooks may become 2.00GHz only across the board but even that route is questionable.
Peterkro
Feb 28, 12:57 PM
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere "sex machine."
It's life Captain but not as we know it.:confused:
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere "sex machine."
It's life Captain but not as we know it.:confused:
SevenInchScrew
Aug 20, 09:40 AM
I laugh at both dirt games because of this...
Personally, I think Codemasters do a great job with racing games, but the problem is, the games they make are always a little more geared toward arcade-style racing. Realistic enough to really get you into the feel of rallying, or touring cars, or whatever, but not SO realistic that only pros can play the game. The early "Colin McRae Rally" games were tons of fun for that very reason. I only played the demo for Dirt though, so I can't really speak for it.
...Forza 3 online was a much unneeded step backwards.
I didn't like it at all either... until recently. They've finally added production hoppers, where everyone in the race is using the exact same car. It makes for some GREAT racing. I've only done a few races so far, but they have been some of the best yet.
Personally, I think Codemasters do a great job with racing games, but the problem is, the games they make are always a little more geared toward arcade-style racing. Realistic enough to really get you into the feel of rallying, or touring cars, or whatever, but not SO realistic that only pros can play the game. The early "Colin McRae Rally" games were tons of fun for that very reason. I only played the demo for Dirt though, so I can't really speak for it.
...Forza 3 online was a much unneeded step backwards.
I didn't like it at all either... until recently. They've finally added production hoppers, where everyone in the race is using the exact same car. It makes for some GREAT racing. I've only done a few races so far, but they have been some of the best yet.
LagunaSol
Apr 6, 03:47 PM
Real tablet OS, Full internet, True multitasking - the list's expanding fast :D
Google did have to take Open off the talking points list... ;)
Google did have to take Open off the talking points list... ;)
Tears Apart
Mar 25, 10:30 PM
*roar*
bring it on, i'm ready
bring it on, i'm ready
gnasher729
Aug 17, 03:52 AM
Lots of stuff on Anandtech about the poor memory performance on the Intel chipset.
Looks like the Xeons got killed by the G5 in Word in their tests.
Might be an interesting machine when/if the motherboard chipset/ memory performance issue is looked in to.
I think part 3 of their review will be telling, paring the machine up to XP machines in a variety of tests.
Anandtech has one big omission: They didn't look at the CPU usage at all. Word doesn't use more than one CPU. And may I say it is damned hard to do anything in Word where CPU usage is of any concern; how often do you export a thousand page Word document to HTML?
These machines can do many things simultaneously. So what would have happened if you were converting a DVD using Handbrake in the background while doing the Word test? On the dual core G5, one CPU would have been used by Word, so Handbrake slows down by 50%. On the Quad core Xeon, one core would have been used by Word, so Handbrake slows down only by 25%.
Looks like the Xeons got killed by the G5 in Word in their tests.
Might be an interesting machine when/if the motherboard chipset/ memory performance issue is looked in to.
I think part 3 of their review will be telling, paring the machine up to XP machines in a variety of tests.
Anandtech has one big omission: They didn't look at the CPU usage at all. Word doesn't use more than one CPU. And may I say it is damned hard to do anything in Word where CPU usage is of any concern; how often do you export a thousand page Word document to HTML?
These machines can do many things simultaneously. So what would have happened if you were converting a DVD using Handbrake in the background while doing the Word test? On the dual core G5, one CPU would have been used by Word, so Handbrake slows down by 50%. On the Quad core Xeon, one core would have been used by Word, so Handbrake slows down only by 25%.
bibbz
Jun 15, 11:39 AM
My RS store would not let me leave information.
They are waiting till 1pm EST.
Meanwhile, people are twittering their stores
are issuing pin numbers to them.
What gives?
We cant issue pins before 12cst, but we can take down your info and punch it in at 12, then call you and give you the pin.
They are waiting till 1pm EST.
Meanwhile, people are twittering their stores
are issuing pin numbers to them.
What gives?
We cant issue pins before 12cst, but we can take down your info and punch it in at 12, then call you and give you the pin.
