adamfilip
Jul 21, 10:13 AM
Now you just need to decide what color your want your new computer... (again)
I want Apple to take the current PowerMac G5 Case
make it 25% shorter, add a second optical drive
and two more Internal hard drives
add some External Sata ports. and 4 more USB2 ports
1 more front usb2 port
make the mic port powered
and then make the case black anodized aluminum. and have the apple logo on the sides backlit just like the notebooks
I want Apple to take the current PowerMac G5 Case
make it 25% shorter, add a second optical drive
and two more Internal hard drives
add some External Sata ports. and 4 more USB2 ports
1 more front usb2 port
make the mic port powered
and then make the case black anodized aluminum. and have the apple logo on the sides backlit just like the notebooks
MacAddict1978
Mar 26, 01:47 AM
I tested Lion, and removed it after a month. Not buying it. I'll use Snow Leopard, it's the best OS so far. I'll see the one after Lion, maybe there will be something interesting.
Would you mind elaborating? Like, why you didn't like it? What about it made you compelled to remove and decide not to buy? And please don't say bugs. It was a beta.
Would you mind elaborating? Like, why you didn't like it? What about it made you compelled to remove and decide not to buy? And please don't say bugs. It was a beta.
rtdunham
Aug 27, 09:15 AM
I believe the 2.33 GHz Merom chip debuted at the same price as the 2.16 GHz Yonah when it was released. The prices of MBPs certainly haven't fallen. Apple has just been enjoying the extra profits from Intel's price drops of the past few months.
good information, logical thought.
do you think apple's $100M payoff to Creative*, and possible need to restate financial information for recent quarters/years because of questionable executive compensation, make the company more reluctant than might otherwise have been the case to intro new chips that are, in the beginning more costly and thus will reduce profits?
*--i know, i know, it's only 1% of apple's cash reserves. But that's not meaningless money: trust me, companies make plenty of strategic decisions that affect their products' features, support quality, whatever, over amounts far less than $100M.
good information, logical thought.
do you think apple's $100M payoff to Creative*, and possible need to restate financial information for recent quarters/years because of questionable executive compensation, make the company more reluctant than might otherwise have been the case to intro new chips that are, in the beginning more costly and thus will reduce profits?
*--i know, i know, it's only 1% of apple's cash reserves. But that's not meaningless money: trust me, companies make plenty of strategic decisions that affect their products' features, support quality, whatever, over amounts far less than $100M.
samcraig
Apr 27, 09:55 AM
And once again the Apple fans will turn out to have been correct.
Really? The posters on here that say there was no issue are correct?
I guess Apple fixing certain bugs related to this is whimtime.
I guess it's all a matter of what part of the issue you deem important. The tracking, the retention or the ability to opt out
Really? The posters on here that say there was no issue are correct?
I guess Apple fixing certain bugs related to this is whimtime.
I guess it's all a matter of what part of the issue you deem important. The tracking, the retention or the ability to opt out
Multimedia
Nov 28, 06:30 PM
I would make sure to NEVER buy another piece of music published by them if they were to extort this from Steve which I highly doubt. If I were Steve I would laugh in their face and call them INSANE to their face as well. Like setting up a toll booth on the railroad tracks of a 200MPH MagLev Train.
gnasher729
Jul 27, 05:59 PM
but is still more productive because it handles more calculations per clock cycle
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.
Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.
And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.
Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.
And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.
mrholder
Apr 6, 04:37 PM
Was considering a Xoom, but purchased a brand new 1st gen iPad a couple of days ago through the Verizon sale. Couldn't resist the price. Plus, can't see spending money on new content for the Xoom when I have tons of content that I've purchased through itunes.
epitaphic
Aug 19, 05:53 PM
And I'm not convinced this is only an application problem. When I run Handbrake on the Quad G5 alone it uses just over two cores 203%
So what happened to:
Both Toast and Handbrake can use 4 cores EACH
Looking at the handbrake forums, speeds seem to vary drastically between users with the same machine. Definitely seems to be affected by whatever else you have running or configured in the OS or otherwise. I suppose the "cleanest" install to test is in the Apple store (I'm just assuming they do a clean ghost copy at shutdown or end of day?)
When I ran tests on the Mac Pro at the Apple Store last Saturday between Toast and/or Handbrake, their use of more cores alone and together was much better.
So your benchmarks show the Mac Pro using 15-33% less CPU than the G5? There's no doubt that Woodcrest is a superior chip architecture to the G5 (one would hope after 3 years) and so that's why you're seeing more FPS inspite of less CPU use. But why does it use less cores though? Seems like either its a software problem OR some hardware is being maxed (I/O or FSB perhaps?)
So would it be correct to say that the only app that is even remotely "Quadcore aware" is Toast? It seems like by the time professional apps are made to take advantage of 4 cores we'll probably be on more than 8! :eek:
If only they could build something in the CPU itself that delegates tasks to n cores, we'd all be sorted. :)
So what happened to:
Both Toast and Handbrake can use 4 cores EACH
Looking at the handbrake forums, speeds seem to vary drastically between users with the same machine. Definitely seems to be affected by whatever else you have running or configured in the OS or otherwise. I suppose the "cleanest" install to test is in the Apple store (I'm just assuming they do a clean ghost copy at shutdown or end of day?)
When I ran tests on the Mac Pro at the Apple Store last Saturday between Toast and/or Handbrake, their use of more cores alone and together was much better.
So your benchmarks show the Mac Pro using 15-33% less CPU than the G5? There's no doubt that Woodcrest is a superior chip architecture to the G5 (one would hope after 3 years) and so that's why you're seeing more FPS inspite of less CPU use. But why does it use less cores though? Seems like either its a software problem OR some hardware is being maxed (I/O or FSB perhaps?)
So would it be correct to say that the only app that is even remotely "Quadcore aware" is Toast? It seems like by the time professional apps are made to take advantage of 4 cores we'll probably be on more than 8! :eek:
If only they could build something in the CPU itself that delegates tasks to n cores, we'd all be sorted. :)
Platform
Sep 13, 07:25 AM
WOW...I have one core....now 8 cores...:eek:
jhedges3
Aug 11, 02:40 PM
OK. let us just cut to the chase. The keyword here is hand-over. CDMA2000 doesnt support it from GSM. GSM has 81%. Hence cdma is and will always be a small local network that can be used in small pockets on this planet. Furthermore, I seriously doubt ITU/FOMA will change anything in the standard to allow any compability for CDMA2000 since it is not in their interest.
The faster cdam/CDMA2000 moves to oblivion the better.
We would all benefit from one standard, cheaper phones, worldwide access, lower minute rates (from higher competition) Just look at how Vz bills you.
Having multiple standard on cellphones is just as clever as having two incompatible internet.
I couldn't care less about whether my phone works well in the EU. What is your data on the percentage of consumers that travel the world to such an extent that they purchase their phones with inter-country usability as their primary consideration?
What maters to me more, not most, is that the phone works well were I make the majority of calls, New York. The majority of people I know do the same. Some people are willing to sacrifice network for phone and a few extra dollars a month, they pref TM and similar carriers. Others want to have better network and get VW and pay for that accordingly.
It seems to me that there is some level of implicit, or not so implicit, EU v US on both sides here. To the person in the EU they should have it first cause, LEST WE NOT FORGET, most of them are using a standard with 81% of the world.
But does anyone really believe that App would bring a phone to market without making it widely available to US consumers, regardless of whether we�re in the 19% minority? Is there any history of this? Have they ever, for example, released new gen iPods late here? Have they ever, for example, released new gen iPods in Sweden first and had the rest of us in the US buying them on eBay from the lucky ones in Stockholm? It simply wouldn�t make sense.
But it�s not even worth fighting over. The availability of any App phone will be sufficient to include nearly all of us; which is to say that if they release such a product all dedicated App consumers will be able to get one on some carrier at some cost.
The faster cdam/CDMA2000 moves to oblivion the better.
We would all benefit from one standard, cheaper phones, worldwide access, lower minute rates (from higher competition) Just look at how Vz bills you.
Having multiple standard on cellphones is just as clever as having two incompatible internet.
I couldn't care less about whether my phone works well in the EU. What is your data on the percentage of consumers that travel the world to such an extent that they purchase their phones with inter-country usability as their primary consideration?
What maters to me more, not most, is that the phone works well were I make the majority of calls, New York. The majority of people I know do the same. Some people are willing to sacrifice network for phone and a few extra dollars a month, they pref TM and similar carriers. Others want to have better network and get VW and pay for that accordingly.
It seems to me that there is some level of implicit, or not so implicit, EU v US on both sides here. To the person in the EU they should have it first cause, LEST WE NOT FORGET, most of them are using a standard with 81% of the world.
But does anyone really believe that App would bring a phone to market without making it widely available to US consumers, regardless of whether we�re in the 19% minority? Is there any history of this? Have they ever, for example, released new gen iPods late here? Have they ever, for example, released new gen iPods in Sweden first and had the rest of us in the US buying them on eBay from the lucky ones in Stockholm? It simply wouldn�t make sense.
But it�s not even worth fighting over. The availability of any App phone will be sufficient to include nearly all of us; which is to say that if they release such a product all dedicated App consumers will be able to get one on some carrier at some cost.
Super Dave
Aug 8, 12:50 AM
Also a very good point, so I need a bigger main HD for my MacBookPro (the new Seagate 160GB becomes interesting) for Time Machine, but i still need to back the hole thing up to an external HD in case of a HD crash (I had 2 in the last 8 months!). So Tine Machine doesn't make Backups obsolete, I didn't even think of that up to now. Hmmm..
Time Machine is backup, it's not for on the same drive (or nothing implied it was).
David :cool:
Time Machine is backup, it's not for on the same drive (or nothing implied it was).
David :cool:
Apple Corps
Aug 27, 09:27 AM
good information, logical thought.
do you think apple's $100M payoff to Creative*, and possible need to restate financial information for recent quarters/years because of questionable executive compensation, make the company more reluctant than might otherwise have been the case to intro new chips that are, in the beginning more costly and thus will reduce profits?
*--i know, i know, it's only 1% of apple's cash reserves. But that's not meaningless money: trust me, companies make plenty of strategic decisions that affect their products' features, support quality, whatever, over amounts far less than $100M.
Why are you saying the new chips will be more costly??? All reports indicate that Merom will release at the same cost as Yonah.
do you think apple's $100M payoff to Creative*, and possible need to restate financial information for recent quarters/years because of questionable executive compensation, make the company more reluctant than might otherwise have been the case to intro new chips that are, in the beginning more costly and thus will reduce profits?
*--i know, i know, it's only 1% of apple's cash reserves. But that's not meaningless money: trust me, companies make plenty of strategic decisions that affect their products' features, support quality, whatever, over amounts far less than $100M.
Why are you saying the new chips will be more costly??? All reports indicate that Merom will release at the same cost as Yonah.
ugp
Jun 10, 12:46 PM
I don't think any Radio Shack sales people know what a transistor is.
You got questions? We have cell phones.
Why would they? Not many people buy them anymore.
In the 7 years I worked at RadioShack we didn't get much business for parts and when we did it was for the stuff we didn't carry. I think Fuses are the only things we sold often from those parts drawers. And it was always the same people coming in for parts anyways.
You got questions? We have cell phones.
Why would they? Not many people buy them anymore.
In the 7 years I worked at RadioShack we didn't get much business for parts and when we did it was for the stuff we didn't carry. I think Fuses are the only things we sold often from those parts drawers. And it was always the same people coming in for parts anyways.
princealfie
Nov 29, 09:16 AM
You're welcome to audit my iPod. I guarantee you'll find nothing but legal tunes.
Given your stance, I wonder how you feel about public libraries offering whole collections of CDs for patrons to "borrow". I think we all know what (many, not all) people are really doing with those CDs when they borrow them. Shouldn't we be doing something about these public institutions turning a blind eye to what is essentially sanctioned piracy?
It is not piracy. We pay state taxes to support the library, so there! :mad:
Given your stance, I wonder how you feel about public libraries offering whole collections of CDs for patrons to "borrow". I think we all know what (many, not all) people are really doing with those CDs when they borrow them. Shouldn't we be doing something about these public institutions turning a blind eye to what is essentially sanctioned piracy?
It is not piracy. We pay state taxes to support the library, so there! :mad:
hyperpasta
Nov 28, 06:27 PM
And I don't understand why they should...Can somebody explain it?
The rationale is that iPods are used only for stolen music (which they aren't) and this will help offset the losses (which it won't).
The rationale is that iPods are used only for stolen music (which they aren't) and this will help offset the losses (which it won't).
thunng8
Apr 9, 08:52 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
TDP != Max power draw
It's not. See my earlier post in this thread. Maximum power dissipation is usually 20-30% more.
But in the case of the Sb quad core the figure seems to be in excess of 50%, not 20%
TDP != Max power draw
It's not. See my earlier post in this thread. Maximum power dissipation is usually 20-30% more.
But in the case of the Sb quad core the figure seems to be in excess of 50%, not 20%
kresh
Nov 29, 11:13 AM
Just to be clear, this whole idea of collecting on music players is nothing short of outrageous. But it doesn't have the legal implications or weight that have been popularized here. They CAN have their cake and eat it, too, and they know it. That's why it's important for me to ensure that these false notions don't become ingrained as part of the Internet groupthink--when you step back into the real world, you'll be equally screwed, with or without this fee.
I really don't harbor any hope that this could really be considered as royalty payment by the courts, it was just a little fantasy.
The real implication is on the moral front. You mentioned "group think" and I think that is the real danger for the record labels. If enough people were to convince themselves that the record label has grabbed enough money upfront, then they could step across the moral line that keeps them from piracy.
It's not law enforcement, or the actions of RIAA, that prevents the vast majority from crossing the line into piracy, it's their own built-in moral objection to it.
If the record labels remove this moral hurdle through their own actions, then there are not enough police officers, federal agencies, or private enforcement groups to even begin to stem the resulting piracy wave.
I really don't harbor any hope that this could really be considered as royalty payment by the courts, it was just a little fantasy.
The real implication is on the moral front. You mentioned "group think" and I think that is the real danger for the record labels. If enough people were to convince themselves that the record label has grabbed enough money upfront, then they could step across the moral line that keeps them from piracy.
It's not law enforcement, or the actions of RIAA, that prevents the vast majority from crossing the line into piracy, it's their own built-in moral objection to it.
If the record labels remove this moral hurdle through their own actions, then there are not enough police officers, federal agencies, or private enforcement groups to even begin to stem the resulting piracy wave.
PetMac
Aug 27, 03:38 PM
Long live PBG5NT. It reminds us how great it is to have frequent updates and powerful portables again.
ctdonath
Mar 22, 02:57 PM
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.
They're not what they're not.
Their purpose is anywhere/anytime/always-on, not "best tool for job X".
I drag my tablet everywhere because it's easy to carry and easy to use (ease on the scale of "quick email check in elevator", "get restaurant.com coupon while walking between car and cafe" easy).
Your complaint is akin to whining a Swiss Army knife is unsuitable for culinary or carpentry use. You have a serious application for which a serious tool is warranted, you get the serious tool - not whine that a lightweight general-purpose device doesn't fulfill the role. ...and sometimes the right tool for a particular enterprise application IS a Swiss Army knife, because for a particular job the "every tool is available in a tiny lightweight package" may be best.
They're not what they're not.
Their purpose is anywhere/anytime/always-on, not "best tool for job X".
I drag my tablet everywhere because it's easy to carry and easy to use (ease on the scale of "quick email check in elevator", "get restaurant.com coupon while walking between car and cafe" easy).
Your complaint is akin to whining a Swiss Army knife is unsuitable for culinary or carpentry use. You have a serious application for which a serious tool is warranted, you get the serious tool - not whine that a lightweight general-purpose device doesn't fulfill the role. ...and sometimes the right tool for a particular enterprise application IS a Swiss Army knife, because for a particular job the "every tool is available in a tiny lightweight package" may be best.
sam8940
Apr 6, 03:57 PM
what about the hacked nooks?
KnightWRX
Apr 8, 08:21 PM
Intel is not forcing anything.
Intel forced nVidia out of the chipset business. :p Which is what led to this whole GPU downgrade for Sandy Bridge equipped Macs with IGPs.
Intel forced nVidia out of the chipset business. :p Which is what led to this whole GPU downgrade for Sandy Bridge equipped Macs with IGPs.
DaveN
Apr 6, 08:07 PM
ULV CPUs (17W) will go to 11.6". The TDP of 320M is not known but 9400M has TDP of 12W so it is quite safe to assume that the TDP is similar to that. That means current 11.6" MBA has TDP of 22W (includes CPU, GPU, chipset) while SB 11.6" MBA would have a TDP of 21W (17W for the CPU and ~4W for the PCH).
13" will go with LV CPUs (25W). Again, currently it has 17W for the CPU and 12W for 320M. That's 29W. 25W CPU and ~4W for PCH gives you the same 29W.
11.6" - Core i5-2537M (option for Core i7-2657M)
13.3" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
Let's add a third model
15" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
That would give extra battery room, running time, and room for an extra port.
I'd go for that as I could use a little more screen area.
13" will go with LV CPUs (25W). Again, currently it has 17W for the CPU and 12W for 320M. That's 29W. 25W CPU and ~4W for PCH gives you the same 29W.
11.6" - Core i5-2537M (option for Core i7-2657M)
13.3" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
Let's add a third model
15" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
That would give extra battery room, running time, and room for an extra port.
I'd go for that as I could use a little more screen area.
KnightWRX
Apr 20, 01:39 PM
The trade dress claims do not list specific models.
Which tells me somebody botched it. Does it impact damage claims if Samsung decides to present one model that doesn't bear any ressemblance to the iPhone like the ones depicted above ?
Or can Apple amend to add specifity to the claim ?
Or is it moot in the eyes of the court and would only apply when calculating damages if a decision is done in favor of Apple ?
Which tells me somebody botched it. Does it impact damage claims if Samsung decides to present one model that doesn't bear any ressemblance to the iPhone like the ones depicted above ?
Or can Apple amend to add specifity to the claim ?
Or is it moot in the eyes of the court and would only apply when calculating damages if a decision is done in favor of Apple ?
leekohler
Mar 3, 01:32 PM
You guys move on without me, please. I regret that I posted to this thread, because I said I wanted to post about technical topics only. It's best for me to post where I can do plenty of good. So I'll go back to the Mac Programming forum where I won't react emotionally.
Bill, it's OK to react emotionally. We're people, not robots. :)
Bill, it's OK to react emotionally. We're people, not robots. :)
