LagunaSol
Apr 11, 01:27 PM
given Apple's increasing tendancy to underwhelm us with new technology features (which are in fact old by the time of their introduction 1-2 years after everyone else), I doubt we get any of these three.
Yeah, like all those trailblazing Android tablets that are 1-2 years ahead of the iPad, right? :rolleyes:
Yeah, like all those trailblazing Android tablets that are 1-2 years ahead of the iPad, right? :rolleyes:
Multimedia
Jul 14, 08:30 PM
This is good news for me.. it will make it easy to resist buying one this year. No 3ghz xeon, no bluray, no new case design.I agree as I am waiting for the 8 core model with Leopard while I continue to limp along on the Quad G5. ;) I run an external Optical on top of my Quad G5 so this would be a nice addition. But I also run an ATA/133 HD inside on top of my optical on it's spare bus port, so it's really not much of an improvement from an internal HD perspective.
What's great is the idea of Apple holding the prices the same in the middle and top while lowering the bottom model's price. Lowers the barrier to entry in this class of machine. But I do think this series is a good transitional setup for those who can't wait for Leopard and have been waiting for Intel longer than those of us with the last of the G5s - especially those coming from G4 Power Macs that are way long in the tooth.
What's great is the idea of Apple holding the prices the same in the middle and top while lowering the bottom model's price. Lowers the barrier to entry in this class of machine. But I do think this series is a good transitional setup for those who can't wait for Leopard and have been waiting for Intel longer than those of us with the last of the G5s - especially those coming from G4 Power Macs that are way long in the tooth.
janstett
Sep 16, 10:14 AM
Dude, how many times do I have to repeat myself before you myopic '90s-era IT geeks understand me? I was referring to the difference between Windows 9x and Windows NT. I neither knew, nor care, that there were different versions of NT itself. For. Christ's. Sake. I have said this three times now. Don't make me come over there.
Well then, if you are so consistantly misinterpreted, have you ever stopped to think you should CLARIFY yourself, or that you must not be communicating your point clearly? The truth is Microsoft has dealt with two simultaneous families of operating systems from 1987-2003, and the survivor is NT/2K/XP, and it was always the better of the two operating system families that geeks like us would be concerned with, so naturally that's the one most people think of when projecting back in history.
Well then, if you are so consistantly misinterpreted, have you ever stopped to think you should CLARIFY yourself, or that you must not be communicating your point clearly? The truth is Microsoft has dealt with two simultaneous families of operating systems from 1987-2003, and the survivor is NT/2K/XP, and it was always the better of the two operating system families that geeks like us would be concerned with, so naturally that's the one most people think of when projecting back in history.
leekohler
Apr 27, 09:43 AM
Did he release a different form of the document today?
I really couldn't give a ratass if he ever released it.
But to say it could not be released? Cmon this is CIA/Secret Service information gathering 101.
Some of the crap that was dug up in for back ground investigations makes getting a birth certificate look easy.
OMG- you're one of them. :eek: Please go get a hobby.
I really couldn't give a ratass if he ever released it.
But to say it could not be released? Cmon this is CIA/Secret Service information gathering 101.
Some of the crap that was dug up in for back ground investigations makes getting a birth certificate look easy.
OMG- you're one of them. :eek: Please go get a hobby.
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.
depperl
Aug 7, 04:30 PM
if leopard is not enough here's some more new features: Leopard-Server (http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/leopard/)
i think leopard-server is going to have some cool things for the enterprise-market :rolleyes:
i think leopard-server is going to have some cool things for the enterprise-market :rolleyes:
Multimedia
Aug 18, 09:19 PM
I purchased Kingston PC2 5300 FB for my Mac Pro from New Egg. They seemed to have the best price and some Mac friendly reviews.
My Pro now starts 10.4.7 in less than 5 seconds!Link To New Egg Mac Pro Kingston Memory? I can't find it. How much money?
Ramseeker.com (http://Ramseeker.com) has a full Mac Pro line up of choices now. Omni OPTIVAL is only $333.99 per 2GB kit including cool blue heatsinks IF YOU USE THIS LINK (http://www.ramseeker.com/scripts/counter.php?http://www.omnitechnologies.biz/cgi-bin/catalog/cp-app.cgi?usr=51F714335&rnd=3227630&rrc=N&affl=B&cip=&act=&aff=&pg=prod&ref=APLMP2X1GB667O&cat=applem).
My Pro now starts 10.4.7 in less than 5 seconds!Link To New Egg Mac Pro Kingston Memory? I can't find it. How much money?
Ramseeker.com (http://Ramseeker.com) has a full Mac Pro line up of choices now. Omni OPTIVAL is only $333.99 per 2GB kit including cool blue heatsinks IF YOU USE THIS LINK (http://www.ramseeker.com/scripts/counter.php?http://www.omnitechnologies.biz/cgi-bin/catalog/cp-app.cgi?usr=51F714335&rnd=3227630&rrc=N&affl=B&cip=&act=&aff=&pg=prod&ref=APLMP2X1GB667O&cat=applem).
ergle2
Sep 13, 01:58 PM
The only limit with Windows is they keep the low end XP home to 2 processors on the same die. There is probably an architectural limit on both OSX and XP and if it's not 8 it's 16. It's probably 8.
There's a bunch of HP Superdome 64-way Itanium systems around running Windows Server mostly for MS SQL work.
Windows XP 64bit is based on the same core. Given the license is per-socket, not per-processor (currently, anyway) and the Pro editions support two sockets, it should in theory support the 8-way setup as described by Anandtech.
Whether it recognises quad-core CPUs as such may of course be a different matter.
There's a bunch of HP Superdome 64-way Itanium systems around running Windows Server mostly for MS SQL work.
Windows XP 64bit is based on the same core. Given the license is per-socket, not per-processor (currently, anyway) and the Pro editions support two sockets, it should in theory support the 8-way setup as described by Anandtech.
Whether it recognises quad-core CPUs as such may of course be a different matter.
macenforcer
Sep 13, 08:52 AM
Now this is what I am talking about. YEAH!
Denarius
Mar 22, 07:36 PM
Don't tell me a flagship armed with 100 Tomahawk missiles and full targeting information just happened to be passing.
I think if military action of this scale is even a possibility, whether you've made a decision, it's pretty normal to put the necessary pieces on standby. I believe keeping strategic targeting information regularly up to date is pretty normal military practise even when you're not at war.
I think if military action of this scale is even a possibility, whether you've made a decision, it's pretty normal to put the necessary pieces on standby. I believe keeping strategic targeting information regularly up to date is pretty normal military practise even when you're not at war.
Silentwave
Jul 15, 03:29 AM
10. Reasonably priced. Check out current PC boxes!
You know the more I think about it the more I question Apple's ability to make anything with a Xeon particularly cheap. I've been pricing all sorts of Dell workstations with the 5100 series Xeon-Woodcrest cores... even the single chip versions are not cheap. Granted, they may have inflated prices due to targeting at the large business market, but still they wouldn't be cheap. We'll see, but the more I think about it maybe we will see Conroe at the low end.
You know the more I think about it the more I question Apple's ability to make anything with a Xeon particularly cheap. I've been pricing all sorts of Dell workstations with the 5100 series Xeon-Woodcrest cores... even the single chip versions are not cheap. Granted, they may have inflated prices due to targeting at the large business market, but still they wouldn't be cheap. We'll see, but the more I think about it maybe we will see Conroe at the low end.
Multimedia
Sep 13, 11:37 AM
I wouldn't want to say I told you so but... :eek: :p :D Where's Multimedia? This is exciting!
Wow...a user upgradable Mac. Good stuff indeed.
I am anxiously awaiting better utilization of all the cores, but the ability to multitask without hiccups is still great for now!Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...
I'm still gonna wait for the Clovertown option to appear in the BTO page, then price retail Clovertowns a Fry's before I decide if I'll let Apple to my upgrade or do it myself according to which way cost less. But I really don't want to kill my warranty on day one. So it'll be academic since they are going retail in a month prolly before Apple adds the Clovertown option to the BTO page although they were pretty Johnny On The Spot with the C2D iMacs.
Wow...a user upgradable Mac. Good stuff indeed.
I am anxiously awaiting better utilization of all the cores, but the ability to multitask without hiccups is still great for now!Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...
I'm still gonna wait for the Clovertown option to appear in the BTO page, then price retail Clovertowns a Fry's before I decide if I'll let Apple to my upgrade or do it myself according to which way cost less. But I really don't want to kill my warranty on day one. So it'll be academic since they are going retail in a month prolly before Apple adds the Clovertown option to the BTO page although they were pretty Johnny On The Spot with the C2D iMacs.
plinden
Sep 12, 11:00 AM
The folks over at Anandtech have dropped engineering samples of the quad core cloverton into a Mac Pro - http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6
and it worked ... all eight cores were recognised.
The rest of the article was interesting too.
and it worked ... all eight cores were recognised.
The rest of the article was interesting too.
Dave00
Aug 7, 03:50 PM
Well, looks like Apple has figured out what to do with all that extra space most of us have on our hard drives. Even though only changes are saved, it seems like this will take up an enormous amount of space, especially for multimedia files like movies, etc. Plus, if only changes are stored, it would seem that to restore a file would entail starting with the original, and applying all the changes since then - wouldn't that take quite a long time? And saving a file would probably take longer too... smells like alot of system slowdown. Still, I'll be very impressed if this actually works without a huge number of bugs - it has to be a phenomenally complicated task to keep track of everything. And it LOOKS really cool. :)
Dave
Dave
aafuss1
Aug 6, 05:26 PM
I think they'll go UDI instead of HDMI (and save fees). The really interesting question here though is HDCP and what means for all existing hardware including cinema displays...
HDMI is very common-as many brands have it now. Some PC's also use it. UDI is better-but not a lot of devices may have until 2007.
HDMI is very common-as many brands have it now. Some PC's also use it. UDI is better-but not a lot of devices may have until 2007.
briand05
Apr 11, 11:49 AM
Hopefully it will have LTE. The disappointing thing is the A5 will be outdated by the end of the year/early 2012, if they do in fact use the same processor as in the iPad 2. They better have 1 GB of RAM at least at that point too. If they wait that long I would hope that the iPhone 5 is a pretty big hardware leap.
TallGuy1970
Mar 31, 04:20 PM
Maybe, just maybe, Steve jobs knows a bit about computing. You may not like his business model, but the man isn't stupid.
dethmaShine
Apr 19, 02:37 PM
WRONG! They weren't invented at Apple's Cupertino HQ, they were invented back in Palo Alto (Xerox PARC).
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes, which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
Who said Apple created the first GUI.
Jobs himself credits Xerox for their GUI. :rolleyes:
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes, which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
Who said Apple created the first GUI.
Jobs himself credits Xerox for their GUI. :rolleyes:
BlondeBuddhist
Jun 8, 08:47 PM
I would rather just order it online if I didn't want to drive to an Apple Store.
Seriously, RadioShack needs to die.
from what the Apple service rep told me today, in order to pre-order by adding a line I have to do the pre-ordering in the store.
Seriously, RadioShack needs to die.
from what the Apple service rep told me today, in order to pre-order by adding a line I have to do the pre-ordering in the store.
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.
bearbear
Mar 31, 07:16 PM
Will wait to see what exactly results from this, as right now it seems like everyone is just jumping to their own (wild) conclusions.
samcraig
Apr 27, 09:32 AM
How is the talk of slower performance because the database isn't as large any different than the discussion about the data in the first place.
Several people were criticizing people for having tin foil hats when it came to what the data was being used for, etc
And now the same people are wearing the same tin foil hats/complaining about some mythological "slow down" by having a smaller database.
Hypocrisy LOL
Several people were criticizing people for having tin foil hats when it came to what the data was being used for, etc
And now the same people are wearing the same tin foil hats/complaining about some mythological "slow down" by having a smaller database.
Hypocrisy LOL
HecubusPro
Aug 26, 06:05 PM
I'm not sure if this is old news, but I only had heard last week that the UK Dell site was listing (not selling) Core 2 Duo systems. When I heard about that, I checked the US site, but no Core 2 Duo computers were yet advertised there. Well, I checked again today, and Dell is starting to sell their Core 2 Duo desktops. I didn't see anything about estimated ship time.
It doesn't look like their notebooks are selling the new chips yet.
http://www.dell.com/content/products/results.aspx/desktops?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&~ck=anav&a=23~0~98591&navla=23~0~98591
It doesn't look like their notebooks are selling the new chips yet.
http://www.dell.com/content/products/results.aspx/desktops?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&~ck=anav&a=23~0~98591&navla=23~0~98591
thunderclap
Apr 8, 06:55 AM
Isn't this hypocritical since Apple has been known to do this in their retail stores too?
No comments:
Post a Comment