Tomaz
Aug 7, 07:10 PM
Did anyone else think it was odd that many of the features seemed so poorly presented. We didn't actually get to see anything new in Spotlight. And no new features of the actual Dashboard were even discussed.
It just doesn't seem that Leopard is as far along as Tiger was when previewed even though Leopard is suppose to ship in the spring just as Tiger did.
Maybe they moved the spotlight bar to the top left and don't want MS to do the same before the Vista release ;)
It just doesn't seem that Leopard is as far along as Tiger was when previewed even though Leopard is suppose to ship in the spring just as Tiger did.
Maybe they moved the spotlight bar to the top left and don't want MS to do the same before the Vista release ;)
JGowan
Mar 26, 11:44 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)
How can you say this. The one release since Leopard was Snow Leopard which was simply a rewritten version of Leopard to make it leaner & meaner.
How can you say this. The one release since Leopard was Snow Leopard which was simply a rewritten version of Leopard to make it leaner & meaner.
�algiris
Apr 27, 08:51 AM
Why did it take so long for Apple to release a statement?
Because they hoped people will grow up and educate themselfs. That never happened obviously.
Because they hoped people will grow up and educate themselfs. That never happened obviously.
puggles
Jun 14, 05:24 PM
Just went to mine...they are opening at 7AM and have both colors available to pre-order. They are also expecting a line and said to get there early because they will run out quickly.
guzhogi
Jul 20, 10:07 AM
First of all, you assume that it is possible to make "one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores". I don't think it is possible to do this (at least not with the x86 architecture using today's technology.)
But assuming such a chip exists, the answer depends on what kind of efficiency you're thinking of.
If you mean computational efficiency (meaning the most useful processing per clock-tick), then a single big core will do better. This is because single-threaded apps will be able to use the full power (whereas multiple threads are needed to take advantagte of multiple cores.) Also, the operating system can get rid of the overhead that is needed to keep software running on the multiple cores from stepping on each other.
If you mean energy efficiency (amount of processing per watt of electricity consumed), then it could go either way, depending on how the chips are made. But given today's manufacturing processes and the non-linear power curve that we see as clock speeds are increased, the multiple-core solution will almost definitely use less power.
I remember hearing about how it is possible to make multiple cores act like one (Idon't remember where I heard this). Anyways, whether 8 cores acting separately or together like 1 big processor has an advantage depends on the program you use. If the program is multi-threaded, then the cores acting separately might have the advantage while single threaded apps will have an advantage if the cores are acting like one. However, many apps today won't see that much improvement either way (like a simple calculator, or solitare and word processing).
But assuming such a chip exists, the answer depends on what kind of efficiency you're thinking of.
If you mean computational efficiency (meaning the most useful processing per clock-tick), then a single big core will do better. This is because single-threaded apps will be able to use the full power (whereas multiple threads are needed to take advantagte of multiple cores.) Also, the operating system can get rid of the overhead that is needed to keep software running on the multiple cores from stepping on each other.
If you mean energy efficiency (amount of processing per watt of electricity consumed), then it could go either way, depending on how the chips are made. But given today's manufacturing processes and the non-linear power curve that we see as clock speeds are increased, the multiple-core solution will almost definitely use less power.
I remember hearing about how it is possible to make multiple cores act like one (Idon't remember where I heard this). Anyways, whether 8 cores acting separately or together like 1 big processor has an advantage depends on the program you use. If the program is multi-threaded, then the cores acting separately might have the advantage while single threaded apps will have an advantage if the cores are acting like one. However, many apps today won't see that much improvement either way (like a simple calculator, or solitare and word processing).
gnasher729
Jul 20, 01:21 PM
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
Absolutely.
The power consumption of a chip is proportional to the clock speed, multiplied by the voltage squared. So at the same voltage, a hypothetical 24 GHz chip would use eight times as much power as a single 3 GHz chip, and the same as eight 3 GHz chips.
However, with any given technology, you need higher voltage to achieve the higher clock speed. So with the same technology, that 24 GHz chip would need much much higher voltage than the 3 GHz chips and accordingly it would take much more energy than eight 3 GHz chips.
As an example, some iPods have two ARM chips running at half the clock speed and lower power instead of a single ARM chip running at higher speed, in order to safe power.
Absolutely.
The power consumption of a chip is proportional to the clock speed, multiplied by the voltage squared. So at the same voltage, a hypothetical 24 GHz chip would use eight times as much power as a single 3 GHz chip, and the same as eight 3 GHz chips.
However, with any given technology, you need higher voltage to achieve the higher clock speed. So with the same technology, that 24 GHz chip would need much much higher voltage than the 3 GHz chips and accordingly it would take much more energy than eight 3 GHz chips.
As an example, some iPods have two ARM chips running at half the clock speed and lower power instead of a single ARM chip running at higher speed, in order to safe power.
Megadooomer
Mar 22, 01:18 PM
Except the biggest spec is missing from it: compatible with the Apple App Store. Sorry, specs are not the end all and be all of device popularity. What good are specs if few developers write the device?
Absolutely. Have you read the developers comments on the SDK? I downloaded it to try and compile a simple game, which I had already written in Flash/AiR. It runs AiR/Flash, so simple right? NO! You have to jump through a million hoops, (Flash>Flex (which just got switched toFlash-Builder with the new CS5 Workflow, SDK compiler, install VMWare, re-install simulator...)
My first game in iOS was prototyped in an evening, 3-5 hours max. I spent 3 WEEKS trying to get things straight in the Playbook SDK and the thing still won't run right.
This is rediculous. Apple provided a sleek, fun SDK to use. Blackberry relied on Adobe, a 3rd party notoriously terrible at providing a simple, consistent user experience. Flash still barely runs on most platforms.The processes are esoteric and convoluted. Android still has far fewer good, independently developed games, and it already runs on millions of devices for developers to cater to. The Playbook will fall flat entering the market at this point and in this way. It will run almost nothing except perhaps for enterprise/data-base Flex applications, which the IPad can already run fine, in addition to running a million other Apps, including Ereading/News updates. Developers will forget about it, consumers will lose interest, and it will be forgotten before the bugs are even ironed out. RIP Playbook, nice gimmick with the free game.
PS what is with this old "walled garden" argument? Can you connect a camera, or a midi keyboard or a guitar to your Android tablet? Can it play a version of Doom written by Carmack? Can it consistently read and annotate any PDF? The "walled garden" thing is a myth. You can jailbreak and load anything, the only difference is you *may* void the warranty, which is only a problem because AppleCare is generally so awesome compared to other companies that people are afraid of endangering it.
Absolutely. Have you read the developers comments on the SDK? I downloaded it to try and compile a simple game, which I had already written in Flash/AiR. It runs AiR/Flash, so simple right? NO! You have to jump through a million hoops, (Flash>Flex (which just got switched toFlash-Builder with the new CS5 Workflow, SDK compiler, install VMWare, re-install simulator...)
My first game in iOS was prototyped in an evening, 3-5 hours max. I spent 3 WEEKS trying to get things straight in the Playbook SDK and the thing still won't run right.
This is rediculous. Apple provided a sleek, fun SDK to use. Blackberry relied on Adobe, a 3rd party notoriously terrible at providing a simple, consistent user experience. Flash still barely runs on most platforms.The processes are esoteric and convoluted. Android still has far fewer good, independently developed games, and it already runs on millions of devices for developers to cater to. The Playbook will fall flat entering the market at this point and in this way. It will run almost nothing except perhaps for enterprise/data-base Flex applications, which the IPad can already run fine, in addition to running a million other Apps, including Ereading/News updates. Developers will forget about it, consumers will lose interest, and it will be forgotten before the bugs are even ironed out. RIP Playbook, nice gimmick with the free game.
PS what is with this old "walled garden" argument? Can you connect a camera, or a midi keyboard or a guitar to your Android tablet? Can it play a version of Doom written by Carmack? Can it consistently read and annotate any PDF? The "walled garden" thing is a myth. You can jailbreak and load anything, the only difference is you *may* void the warranty, which is only a problem because AppleCare is generally so awesome compared to other companies that people are afraid of endangering it.
Tomaz
Aug 7, 03:40 PM
The top secret features better be REALLY good, this was disappointing and nothing was really new! Cupertino started it's photocopiers.... (The Vista banners are an actual joke after this keynote) :(
cgc
Jul 15, 05:24 PM
...Putting the PSU at the top, oh dang the computer will tip over with 1 inch of less travel...
...Really people most of the agurments people are using against putting the PSU at the top are stupid and weak at best...
...It WILL NOT make the computer top heavy. The base on computer is wide enough to keep it stable any how...
I was not arguing for or against PSUs at top or bottom, I was simply trying to throw one simple point out: that a 300W PSU which weighs between 2 and 4 lbs would bring the top weight up slightly. I'm not saying it will make Macs tip. I'm sure Apple has considered distributing the weight to ensure their towers are stable, especially since they have one of the largest towers on the market in the G5.
BTW, no need to be so sarcastic and have such a bad attitude.
...Really people most of the agurments people are using against putting the PSU at the top are stupid and weak at best...
...It WILL NOT make the computer top heavy. The base on computer is wide enough to keep it stable any how...
I was not arguing for or against PSUs at top or bottom, I was simply trying to throw one simple point out: that a 300W PSU which weighs between 2 and 4 lbs would bring the top weight up slightly. I'm not saying it will make Macs tip. I'm sure Apple has considered distributing the weight to ensure their towers are stable, especially since they have one of the largest towers on the market in the G5.
BTW, no need to be so sarcastic and have such a bad attitude.
Multimedia
Jul 21, 01:51 PM
Yes, with the possibility of a Mac Pro with 8 core on the horizon, it makes sense to skip the 4 core altogether. Or, start with lower end of 4 cores (say 2GHz) and then, if necessary and possible, upgrade it to 8 cores. I wonder if waiting for 8 cores is going to be a common sentiment. In that case, it would make sense for Apple to offer an upgrade path to it.There may be unknown variables supporting 8 cores from 4 such that I would not want to take that path. I would rather have 8 cores on a new motherboard with faster ram etc supported to get the most out of all of them at newer faster speeds.
WildPalms
Sep 13, 09:12 AM
*sigh* My poor, poor wallet.....may as well call it iWallet for the use it gets buying Apple gear constantly....:o
trogdor!
Jul 14, 10:20 PM
The current powermac g5's have 1 16x PCI-E slot for the video card along with 2 - 4x and 1 - 8x PCI-E slots. Video cards are about the only thing right now that can even use all 16 lanes of the PCI-E bus. I am not saying future things wont, but thats how it currently stands.
iliketyla
Apr 6, 02:03 PM
Motorola not selling any units of a crappy product? Huh... who'd have thought.
I wish they'd start banning people who makes baseless comments like this.
I wish they'd start banning people who makes baseless comments like this.
wmmk
Jul 14, 06:19 PM
The thing I like least about this rumor is that it specifies only a 320GB harddrive.
The current configs (quad g5) were released in October of last year, in that time harddrive capacities have increased well beyond that (320) small number.
The new machines will get 500GB drives I have to believe.
:confused:
320 would be the standard. you could upgrade to a terabyte if there are still two HDD bays.
The current configs (quad g5) were released in October of last year, in that time harddrive capacities have increased well beyond that (320) small number.
The new machines will get 500GB drives I have to believe.
:confused:
320 would be the standard. you could upgrade to a terabyte if there are still two HDD bays.
amin
Aug 18, 10:28 PM
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac.
It may be obvious, but based on your earlier statement that a Conroe iMac would be "able to crunch through" apps faster than a Mac Pro, the obvious seemed worth identifying.
But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
*snip*
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
*snip*
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
It may be obvious, but based on your earlier statement that a Conroe iMac would be "able to crunch through" apps faster than a Mac Pro, the obvious seemed worth identifying.
But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
*snip*
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
*snip*
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
M-O
Apr 25, 01:35 PM
wow, this has officially been blown out of proportion!
Reach9
Apr 11, 02:28 PM
I don't think that's the market Apple wants. They already have the #1 selling smart phone. They make more profit than all competitors combined off of the iPhone. The Cell phone market is very fluid and Apple knows it just has to keep producing the coolest and more desired phone and they will always have a decent share of the market and make tons of money.
in the mean time, Moto, Samsung, HTC, LG and others all battle it out with the same OS and dropping prices to get market share. A race to the bottom strategy that I'm not sure will last forever.
All Apple needs to do is keep the "coolness" coming. Reward us with nice iOS updates and keep us happy with the best support in the market.
Are you talking about hardware? Because software wise Android is the #1 selling. It has a greater market share than iOS. (only because there are more of them though).
in the mean time, Moto, Samsung, HTC, LG and others all battle it out with the same OS and dropping prices to get market share. A race to the bottom strategy that I'm not sure will last forever.
All Apple needs to do is keep the "coolness" coming. Reward us with nice iOS updates and keep us happy with the best support in the market.
Are you talking about hardware? Because software wise Android is the #1 selling. It has a greater market share than iOS. (only because there are more of them though).
drsmithy
Sep 14, 08:23 PM
True (today anyway; in the NT era they were indeed separate platforms though. Which brings me to my next point..)
I think you're a bit arse-about-face there. Someone else has already pointed out the differences between XP and Windows 2003 aren't trivial, so I won't go into that. However, if you're sufficient vintage, you should remember the "outrage" when someone demonstrated that you could turn NT 4 Workstation into NT 4 Server (including the boot and login screens) just by changing a few Registry settings (although the part that usually doesn't get said is that those Registry settings then triggered a whole range of different tuning settings for the scheduler, memory management, etc). NT 3.5 & 3.51 were the same, and IIRC, NT 3.1 didn't even have a "Server" version.
I think you're a bit arse-about-face there. Someone else has already pointed out the differences between XP and Windows 2003 aren't trivial, so I won't go into that. However, if you're sufficient vintage, you should remember the "outrage" when someone demonstrated that you could turn NT 4 Workstation into NT 4 Server (including the boot and login screens) just by changing a few Registry settings (although the part that usually doesn't get said is that those Registry settings then triggered a whole range of different tuning settings for the scheduler, memory management, etc). NT 3.5 & 3.51 were the same, and IIRC, NT 3.1 didn't even have a "Server" version.
Popeye206
Apr 19, 02:06 PM
lawsuit aside, that's up to the courts, not all the couch lawyers here....
I was wondering if maybe the sales numbers for the iPad are just iPad 1.0 sales and not including iPad 2?
I guess we'll know tomorrow.
I was wondering if maybe the sales numbers for the iPad are just iPad 1.0 sales and not including iPad 2?
I guess we'll know tomorrow.
macaddiict
Apr 25, 01:37 PM
I haven't read this lawsuit, so I don't know if they're claiming things that aren't true... but I really do not like the fact that the iPhone has a breadcrumbs database of my travels for the last 3 years!
This type of thing should not happen without users' knowledge... and it was. Or else this file would not be news!
This type of thing should not happen without users' knowledge... and it was. Or else this file would not be news!
angrynstupid
Apr 27, 08:02 AM
I actually thought looking at a history of where my phone has been on a map was kinda cool. Bummer.
Since I'm neither a criminal nor paranoid, I thought it was kind of cool/interesting too.
Since I'm neither a criminal nor paranoid, I thought it was kind of cool/interesting too.
twoodcc
Aug 5, 08:41 PM
NO iPODS OR iPHONE I DON'T CARE FOR THEM ONE JOT
Ok, Stevie J, You can introduce the Mac Pro, the new XServe, and Leopard on Monday.
But please don't deny us our new conroe iMac with x1800XT! Release it on Tuesday!!! And Merom Macbooks and Macbook Pros. You will lose too many sales and potential switchers if you wait until the end of September!
Plus I'll cry.
We beggs of you Stevie J, we wants it, we needs it, it must come to me!
The iMac Ultra is mine. My own. My precious.
Alright, give precious back to master now......
Ok, Stevie J, You can introduce the Mac Pro, the new XServe, and Leopard on Monday.
But please don't deny us our new conroe iMac with x1800XT! Release it on Tuesday!!! And Merom Macbooks and Macbook Pros. You will lose too many sales and potential switchers if you wait until the end of September!
Plus I'll cry.
We beggs of you Stevie J, we wants it, we needs it, it must come to me!
The iMac Ultra is mine. My own. My precious.
Alright, give precious back to master now......
Orange-DE
Jul 21, 07:30 AM
Now you just need to decide what color your want your new computer... (again)
Think pINK
Think pINK
zelet
Aug 25, 04:57 PM
Just out of curiosity... what kind of problems could you possibly have with .mac? I mean, I've never had any email problems, Setting it up in Mail is as simple as possible... the online interface is simple...
I dunno... hearing people complain about customer service regarding .mac seems funny to me. What types of problems have you had with it?
Well, recently there have been problems with people having their mail bounced back to them because somehow the dotMac smtp servers were blacklisted by spamcop and a few other services. They have been having pretty bad, though geographically localized, service disruptions. Friends of mine have also complained that mail they send to me are sometimes bounced back with a "This account doesn't exist" error message even though they have sent me mail before and after the event (yes, they verified the email address).
So, in summary, there are a lot of problems that shouldn't occur with a $100 a year service. DotMac should be at least a 99% uptime service for that kind of money.
I dunno... hearing people complain about customer service regarding .mac seems funny to me. What types of problems have you had with it?
Well, recently there have been problems with people having their mail bounced back to them because somehow the dotMac smtp servers were blacklisted by spamcop and a few other services. They have been having pretty bad, though geographically localized, service disruptions. Friends of mine have also complained that mail they send to me are sometimes bounced back with a "This account doesn't exist" error message even though they have sent me mail before and after the event (yes, they verified the email address).
So, in summary, there are a lot of problems that shouldn't occur with a $100 a year service. DotMac should be at least a 99% uptime service for that kind of money.
0 comments:
Post a Comment