Macnoviz
Jul 20, 10:14 AM
At some point your going to have deminished returns. Sure multimedia apps can take advantage of a few more cores, but I dont see Mail running faster on 4 cores, nevermind 2!
How fast do you want mail to go? The main reasons you need good processors is not for browsing, e-mail, text, and such and such. I highly doubt someone who does all these things on a five year old computer will be much slower than someone on a 16 GB RAM top of the line Powermac
Why don't they just call it: Big Mac.
I think that's the best name I've heard in this thread (sorry, Chundles)
How fast do you want mail to go? The main reasons you need good processors is not for browsing, e-mail, text, and such and such. I highly doubt someone who does all these things on a five year old computer will be much slower than someone on a 16 GB RAM top of the line Powermac
Why don't they just call it: Big Mac.
I think that's the best name I've heard in this thread (sorry, Chundles)
milo
Nov 29, 11:05 AM
"I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way"
Well, I can't see why Universal wouldn't do that...getting paid money for doing nothing? Sure, I'll have some too.
But I can definitely see why Apple wouldn't do that. Universal could threaten to yank all their content from iTunes if Apple refuses but at this point that might hurt Universal more than Apple.
Well, I can't see why Universal wouldn't do that...getting paid money for doing nothing? Sure, I'll have some too.
But I can definitely see why Apple wouldn't do that. Universal could threaten to yank all their content from iTunes if Apple refuses but at this point that might hurt Universal more than Apple.
gorgeousninja
Apr 20, 09:40 AM
Don't let a few cherry picked pictures trick you, most Galaxy models don't look at all like an iPhone :
http://www.rogers.com/cms/images/en/Wireless/CellPhoneDetail/Banners/banner01_i896blkr.png
This one can go either way. Of course the Apple biased media are cherry picking their pictures. I'd doubt you'd have a hard time telling both devices apart in the real world with both in front of you.
Especially consdiring the Samsung doesn't use the icon grid on its homescreen at all, contrary to what the pictures are trying to show.
http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Screen-shot-2011-04-19-at-8.37.05-PM.png
feel free to point out how difficult it is to see any similarities...
http://www.rogers.com/cms/images/en/Wireless/CellPhoneDetail/Banners/banner01_i896blkr.png
This one can go either way. Of course the Apple biased media are cherry picking their pictures. I'd doubt you'd have a hard time telling both devices apart in the real world with both in front of you.
Especially consdiring the Samsung doesn't use the icon grid on its homescreen at all, contrary to what the pictures are trying to show.
http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Screen-shot-2011-04-19-at-8.37.05-PM.png
feel free to point out how difficult it is to see any similarities...
Popeye206
Apr 19, 02:11 PM
x2
Everything is just a development of something else.
There is no absolute originality.
This is a stupid waste of time and effort.
But I guess when you get all big and high and mighty then why not throw some of the spare cash at a silly law suit if for no other reason than getting more publicity.
You obviously don't work in software or product development with statements like this.
Everything is just a development of something else.
There is no absolute originality.
This is a stupid waste of time and effort.
But I guess when you get all big and high and mighty then why not throw some of the spare cash at a silly law suit if for no other reason than getting more publicity.
You obviously don't work in software or product development with statements like this.
shamino
Jul 14, 03:59 PM
My PC (in a full tower case) has the PSU at the bottom. Having had a case with the PSU at the top before, it seems more stable with all that weight in the base of the case. It also makes it easier to reach around the back for cables, as I don't need to stretch as far.
As long as you don't have liquid cooling (a-la the quad G5 systems.)
If your radiator springs a leak, the liquid runs into your power supply, blowing it out (and usually taking out the motherboard as well.)
With the PS on top, this doesn't happen. A leaky radiator simply means a liquid mess in the case (and a system that hits thermal-shutdown very quickly until you get it fixed, of course.)
As long as you don't have liquid cooling (a-la the quad G5 systems.)
If your radiator springs a leak, the liquid runs into your power supply, blowing it out (and usually taking out the motherboard as well.)
With the PS on top, this doesn't happen. A leaky radiator simply means a liquid mess in the case (and a system that hits thermal-shutdown very quickly until you get it fixed, of course.)
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 ;)
epitaphic
Aug 18, 11:46 PM
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
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
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.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
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 ;).
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
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.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
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.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
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 ;).
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
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.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
Cougarcat
Mar 26, 07:44 PM
It's crap that is no longer needed.
It's needed for me.
Look, Rosetta isn't a part of OS X by default. If it is installed, then it is needed by the user, and thus isn't "crap." If the user doesn't need it, it won't be installed. For most users, it will be "cut out." I don't see why having the option there for people who need it stifles progress.
It's needed for me.
Look, Rosetta isn't a part of OS X by default. If it is installed, then it is needed by the user, and thus isn't "crap." If the user doesn't need it, it won't be installed. For most users, it will be "cut out." I don't see why having the option there for people who need it stifles progress.
ChickenSwartz
Aug 26, 06:18 PM
I have just ordered a mbp :( It wasn't supposed to ship until Monday but it shipped early :( If the rumors are true will I be able to send it back and get the new one? Has anyone had any experience in returning unwanted stuff to apple as time is not on my side (leave for uni on the 16th Sept)
I never have but I hear it is pretty easy if you DON'T OPEN THE BOX.
The only change is likely to be the cpu. The rest of the MBP will probably be kept the same and if you look at the yonah vs merom benchmarks at places like AnandTech, it probably isn't worth sending it back.
It has been rumored that there might some minor changes to the computer such as easilly removable HD, differnt latch, as said above. But more importantly, I hope they bump the clock speeds and include 1GB RAM as standard on lowest MBP model for the same price.
I never have but I hear it is pretty easy if you DON'T OPEN THE BOX.
The only change is likely to be the cpu. The rest of the MBP will probably be kept the same and if you look at the yonah vs merom benchmarks at places like AnandTech, it probably isn't worth sending it back.
It has been rumored that there might some minor changes to the computer such as easilly removable HD, differnt latch, as said above. But more importantly, I hope they bump the clock speeds and include 1GB RAM as standard on lowest MBP model for the same price.
z4n3
Apr 6, 03:27 AM
Forget about new Macs! just give us FCS A.S.A.P. :eek:
Ace25
Aug 26, 04:10 PM
I am now pretty sure that new MacBooks are being released in the next few days.
I ordered one on the 17th of august and it was scheduled to ship on the 24th of august. Then for some reason it was bumped to a new ship date of august 31st, just enough time to drop a new merom processor in it!
I ordered one on the 17th of august and it was scheduled to ship on the 24th of august. Then for some reason it was bumped to a new ship date of august 31st, just enough time to drop a new merom processor in it!
brepublican
Sep 19, 12:15 AM
G5 PowerBooks next tuesday :confused:
:D
That one never gets old :D
Seriously though, I'm not holding my breath. Really not in the market for a notebook at the mo... But it'd still be sweet to get some updates. Keeps me feeling all warm and fuzzy :)
:D
That one never gets old :D
Seriously though, I'm not holding my breath. Really not in the market for a notebook at the mo... But it'd still be sweet to get some updates. Keeps me feeling all warm and fuzzy :)
wpotere
Apr 28, 01:28 PM
...so what you said about doubting and not believing is not true.
Haven't you noticed this trend in everything he posts? I called him out ages ago.
Haven't you noticed this trend in everything he posts? I called him out ages ago.
xxBURT0Nxx
Apr 7, 09:54 AM
It's not false per say, at least not 100%. Of course, graphics in such systems are usually IGPs, but before the Core iX line of processors, anyone could license and build chipsets for these processors and include a different IGP than Intel did. Intel however refused to license this for the new processors, including the SB line and thus nVidia who was making chipsets could not produce an IGP for the new platform.
So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.
So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
I know about the whole nvidia/intel lawsuit, but to say that intel forced apple to use the IGP is not correct imo. Yes they may have said if you want to use integrated graphics, they must be our integrated graphics on sandy bridge, but obviously apple could still have chosen to use discrete graphics as they did in some of the macbook pros, however seeing them absent on the airs and the 13" mbp shows that apple didn't have enough space to include discrete on top of the new processors. I see what you are saying, but the op said intel made apple use their graphics in a machine that costs this much!?!? not true apple could have easily added amd graphics if they wanted to, however due to cost/design/whatever they use integrated graphics in their smaller laptops!
So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.
So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
I know about the whole nvidia/intel lawsuit, but to say that intel forced apple to use the IGP is not correct imo. Yes they may have said if you want to use integrated graphics, they must be our integrated graphics on sandy bridge, but obviously apple could still have chosen to use discrete graphics as they did in some of the macbook pros, however seeing them absent on the airs and the 13" mbp shows that apple didn't have enough space to include discrete on top of the new processors. I see what you are saying, but the op said intel made apple use their graphics in a machine that costs this much!?!? not true apple could have easily added amd graphics if they wanted to, however due to cost/design/whatever they use integrated graphics in their smaller laptops!
wpotere
Apr 28, 06:28 PM
Yet you lump all the liberals.
That is a good point... I was "lumped" in as a liberal and I don't consider myself one. I am more moderate. Live and let live kind of guy...
That is a good point... I was "lumped" in as a liberal and I don't consider myself one. I am more moderate. Live and let live kind of guy...
DaveTheGrey
Jul 20, 01:52 PM
with 8 cores, the aps will show up two secs BEFORE you'll have clicked on the icon. :D
relimw
Aug 7, 01:29 PM
Oops, double posted. Delete this post.
Pro31
Apr 11, 02:24 PM
This is good for me because I waited forever due to wanting a white iphone, and so I didn't upgrade until the fall time frame. Now I won't have to see how awesome the iphone 5 is while not being able to upgrade! :).
starnox
Aug 5, 04:58 PM
My bad :p Never trust random world clock websites ;)
milo
Aug 17, 04:29 PM
Some people do things called graphic design and video editing for a living. Sometimes, when you want to make money and put food on the table, you want top of the line equipment.:rolleyes:
I guess you missed that he was responding to someone talking about gaming? Less eye rolling, more paying attention.
To make more money faster.Yes. I agree totally. If you are making your living with your Mac doing graphics and video work, every minute saved is another minute you can take on another client or meet a perviously impossible deadline. So in that case the extra $850 is made up in a matter of a few weeks or months at worst. Totally understandable when time is money for the Mac professional. :)
Ditto.
I guess you missed that he was responding to someone talking about gaming? Less eye rolling, more paying attention.
To make more money faster.Yes. I agree totally. If you are making your living with your Mac doing graphics and video work, every minute saved is another minute you can take on another client or meet a perviously impossible deadline. So in that case the extra $850 is made up in a matter of a few weeks or months at worst. Totally understandable when time is money for the Mac professional. :)
Ditto.
TangoCharlie
Jul 20, 12:44 PM
I disagree. I think Apple will use Core 2 Duo (Conroe) in the iMac, and Merom in the MBP. The iMac could hold a G5, why not Conroe?
On top of that, you'll notice that a 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $70 less than the 1.83 GHz Yonah that's in the iMac now, $70 less than a 2 GHz Merom, and $200 less than a 2.16 GHz Merom, increasing Apple's profit margins on the iMac considerably or allowing a price drop- plus they can advertise it as a desktop processor.
In fact, even if Conroe was too hot (which I highly doubt, since the iMac had a G5), a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz still saves $70 over a 2 GHz Merom.
I don't disagree with your logic.... and in time I think the iMac will move to Conroe; However, the Merom is a drop-in replacement for the Yonah, and that fact alone suggests to me that Apple will upgrade the iMac to Merom first (WWDC). The very fact that Merom and Conroe will both be "Core 2 Duo" will let Apple pop in a Merom initially and then "upgrade" to Conroe with a mainboard upgrade at a later date. As you say, I don't think heat is an issue here.
Only time will tell. :)
On top of that, you'll notice that a 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $70 less than the 1.83 GHz Yonah that's in the iMac now, $70 less than a 2 GHz Merom, and $200 less than a 2.16 GHz Merom, increasing Apple's profit margins on the iMac considerably or allowing a price drop- plus they can advertise it as a desktop processor.
In fact, even if Conroe was too hot (which I highly doubt, since the iMac had a G5), a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz still saves $70 over a 2 GHz Merom.
I don't disagree with your logic.... and in time I think the iMac will move to Conroe; However, the Merom is a drop-in replacement for the Yonah, and that fact alone suggests to me that Apple will upgrade the iMac to Merom first (WWDC). The very fact that Merom and Conroe will both be "Core 2 Duo" will let Apple pop in a Merom initially and then "upgrade" to Conroe with a mainboard upgrade at a later date. As you say, I don't think heat is an issue here.
Only time will tell. :)
Amazing Iceman
Mar 31, 10:02 PM
I've really loved my experience with Android so far. I've had an iPhone and a iPhone 3G and I am an iPhone developer.... yet I use Android.
Android will always be "open source" and this is not inconsistent with Google applying more control to stem inoperable fragmentation. These two ideas are not at odds.
I cannot wait for Google to do what I think Amazon is currently trying to do with their new App. Store.
That said I really like the new iPad 2, but sadly my next purchase would prolly be a i7 MacBook Pro.
Just a quick question, hopefully not out of topic:
Which one do you prefer as a developer, not as a user: iOS or Android?
Good choice about the MBP i7. It's been over 3 years since I got my MBP, and it's time to replace it, but I may get an i7 iMac instead, as I now carry my iPad everywhere.
If a really good MBP comes out, I may reconsider and get one instead of the iMac. Too soon to decide.
Android will always be "open source" and this is not inconsistent with Google applying more control to stem inoperable fragmentation. These two ideas are not at odds.
I cannot wait for Google to do what I think Amazon is currently trying to do with their new App. Store.
That said I really like the new iPad 2, but sadly my next purchase would prolly be a i7 MacBook Pro.
Just a quick question, hopefully not out of topic:
Which one do you prefer as a developer, not as a user: iOS or Android?
Good choice about the MBP i7. It's been over 3 years since I got my MBP, and it's time to replace it, but I may get an i7 iMac instead, as I now carry my iPad everywhere.
If a really good MBP comes out, I may reconsider and get one instead of the iMac. Too soon to decide.
wmmk
Aug 20, 01:04 AM
Anyone ever check and see if Quicktime was Universal
if i'm not mistaken, it's been universal since osx for intel was released.
if i'm not mistaken, it's been universal since osx for intel was released.
louis Fashion
Apr 11, 12:01 PM
Hope to see VZ convergence in 2012. Hate to wait tho.....