gnasher729
Jul 20, 01:06 PM
I have a question.
If Kentsfield is a relation of the Conroe part (ie. Core 2 Duo) then will it be capable of being configured in a pair to create a "octo" core machine?
Surely that will require a Xeon class processor (like a quad version of the Woodcrest)?
Most likely not. The other question is: Is it easy to plug a Kentsfield into a machine designed for Conroe (not for the end user, but for Apple), and is it easy to plug two Clovertowns into a machine designed for two Woodcrests?
If Kentsfield is a relation of the Conroe part (ie. Core 2 Duo) then will it be capable of being configured in a pair to create a "octo" core machine?
Surely that will require a Xeon class processor (like a quad version of the Woodcrest)?
Most likely not. The other question is: Is it easy to plug a Kentsfield into a machine designed for Conroe (not for the end user, but for Apple), and is it easy to plug two Clovertowns into a machine designed for two Woodcrests?
eggstone
Nov 28, 07:38 PM
It seems that Universal shouldn't get benefit at every iPod sold, and the idea is just as ridiculus as they are asking each CD-player and casette player sold for money. However, big companies are always greedy. Apple does this too, for example, they charge a fee for every iPod accessary! Although cosumers do not pay this fee directly, they add up to the price we pay!
MyDesktopBroke
Apr 27, 09:06 AM
Barack Husein Obama was born in Kenya! Now we have proof!!! Look, it says it right there!! :rolleyes:
chrmjenkins
Apr 6, 12:00 PM
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Are you comparing it to a MBA with 320M or a 13" MBP with 320M? The latter is unfair because it is not analogous to the CPU and GPU speed in an ultra-portable like the series 9 or MBP.
Are you smoking something? Sure the IGP used in SB 13" MBP might get some fudged numbers by those who report for Apple, but you think the ULV SB IGP is going to even compare to the 320m on any level??? Huh? You are far smarter than that.
A lot of people using the 13" MBP in comparison when there are almost no similaries.
I don't believe a ULV CPU gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe this CPU in the story gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe Apple is dumb enough to ruin the MBA brand AGAIN with Intel's IGP at this time. I don't believe that what Apple does in the 13" MBP has any correlation with the MBA because the IGP is different. I believe when Apple and Nvidia said Apple will use the Nvidia chipset and GPU for a long time they were specifically citing the MBA, as it make no sense for the MBA to be so challenged as to get such an inferior design leading to tragic real world results.
In 2012 the MBA will get an update when it actually makes sense. People waiting for a ULV SB chip in the 13" MBA will be waiting a long time. People waiting or expecting SB IGP to even compare in ULV variants will be waiting forever as they cannot match the Nvidia offering with the underclocked IGP.
This story is ridiculous as written.
Just exactly what end use do you imagine being crippled in the MBA by going from a 320M to a HD3000 IGP? Surely you don't suggest that the number of people gaming on the MBA and who demand that performance is sufficient enough to determine the fate of the product line or even approach appreciable numbers in sales.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Are you comparing it to a MBA with 320M or a 13" MBP with 320M? The latter is unfair because it is not analogous to the CPU and GPU speed in an ultra-portable like the series 9 or MBP.
Are you smoking something? Sure the IGP used in SB 13" MBP might get some fudged numbers by those who report for Apple, but you think the ULV SB IGP is going to even compare to the 320m on any level??? Huh? You are far smarter than that.
A lot of people using the 13" MBP in comparison when there are almost no similaries.
I don't believe a ULV CPU gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe this CPU in the story gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe Apple is dumb enough to ruin the MBA brand AGAIN with Intel's IGP at this time. I don't believe that what Apple does in the 13" MBP has any correlation with the MBA because the IGP is different. I believe when Apple and Nvidia said Apple will use the Nvidia chipset and GPU for a long time they were specifically citing the MBA, as it make no sense for the MBA to be so challenged as to get such an inferior design leading to tragic real world results.
In 2012 the MBA will get an update when it actually makes sense. People waiting for a ULV SB chip in the 13" MBA will be waiting a long time. People waiting or expecting SB IGP to even compare in ULV variants will be waiting forever as they cannot match the Nvidia offering with the underclocked IGP.
This story is ridiculous as written.
Just exactly what end use do you imagine being crippled in the MBA by going from a 320M to a HD3000 IGP? Surely you don't suggest that the number of people gaming on the MBA and who demand that performance is sufficient enough to determine the fate of the product line or even approach appreciable numbers in sales.
2IS
Apr 8, 08:24 PM
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.
Well then allow me to be the broken record...
Intel isn't forcing anything. Mac Book pro's are using Sandy Bridge AND have a separate graphics chipset. :rolleyes:
Well then allow me to be the broken record...
Intel isn't forcing anything. Mac Book pro's are using Sandy Bridge AND have a separate graphics chipset. :rolleyes:
mdelvecchio
Mar 31, 03:28 PM
The question is what will Google do when they do publish the source code? All of these people pointing and laughing didn't read the article.
no, the question is: "Is this evil?" when google starts rejecting Facebook Android phones, or android versions using Bing and not Google...
thats the question.
no, the question is: "Is this evil?" when google starts rejecting Facebook Android phones, or android versions using Bing and not Google...
thats the question.
generik
Jul 29, 09:29 AM
this would be smart because as of right now the mac book pro doesnt WOW me over the macbook. Do you think the "core 3" will also have the same pin structure as the 2's?
Not a chance in hell, give up the idea of upgrading your Mac already :rolleyes:
The newer Meroms that are to come out Q2 2007 will be based off a completely new socket.
Not a chance in hell, give up the idea of upgrading your Mac already :rolleyes:
The newer Meroms that are to come out Q2 2007 will be based off a completely new socket.
kalun
Sep 18, 11:06 PM
In Macbook/Pro are updating in Novemeber...It means Apple is 3 months behind all laptop manufactures...
I seriously doubt that Apple will let that happen, but then again, they are apple, they think differently!
I seriously doubt that Apple will let that happen, but then again, they are apple, they think differently!
LaDirection
Jul 14, 04:36 PM
"Steve Jobs really must have been embarassed after claiming we'd have 3 ghz when we still can't even pass 2.7 ghz without a huge unstable liquid cooling system."
I think we'll see more cores per cpu before we see 3GHz. IMHO, 4,8 or more cores at 2.66 is far better than 1 or 2 cores at 3GHz.
""Steve Jobs really must have been embarassed after claiming we'd have 3 ghz when we still can't even pass 2.7 ghz without a huge unstable liquid cooling system."
IBM never produced chips that could run at 2.7GHz. In IBM was stuck at 2.2GHz instead of the 3GHz promised. Apple requested that chips be overclocked to 2.5GHz. In IBM was stuck at 2.3 GHZ, these chips were also overclocked to 2.7GHz. This year we are at Dual Cores 2.5Ghz. Even if Apple uses nothing but 2.66 GHz Dual cores, they will still be the fastest, non-overcloked chips that Apple has ever used.
"IMHO, 4,8 or more cores at 2.66 is far better than 1 or 2 cores at 3GHz."
8 cores?! Wow, maybe one day! But 2 or more cores/CPU are only good if your app can use them. Most applications, and in fact many of Apple, do not use more than 2 cores/CPUS. The Quad core G5's are a good example how the 3rd and 4th core are 98% or the time unused. A Dual 3GHz to a user would be much more usuefull than an 8 core 2.5GHz!
P.S. The number ONE problem that Apple must address in their pro line is the lack of Hard Drive bays! We need at least 4 HD, please! An internal 10,000 RPM RAID array is music to teh ears of pro video and film users.
I think we'll see more cores per cpu before we see 3GHz. IMHO, 4,8 or more cores at 2.66 is far better than 1 or 2 cores at 3GHz.
""Steve Jobs really must have been embarassed after claiming we'd have 3 ghz when we still can't even pass 2.7 ghz without a huge unstable liquid cooling system."
IBM never produced chips that could run at 2.7GHz. In IBM was stuck at 2.2GHz instead of the 3GHz promised. Apple requested that chips be overclocked to 2.5GHz. In IBM was stuck at 2.3 GHZ, these chips were also overclocked to 2.7GHz. This year we are at Dual Cores 2.5Ghz. Even if Apple uses nothing but 2.66 GHz Dual cores, they will still be the fastest, non-overcloked chips that Apple has ever used.
"IMHO, 4,8 or more cores at 2.66 is far better than 1 or 2 cores at 3GHz."
8 cores?! Wow, maybe one day! But 2 or more cores/CPU are only good if your app can use them. Most applications, and in fact many of Apple, do not use more than 2 cores/CPUS. The Quad core G5's are a good example how the 3rd and 4th core are 98% or the time unused. A Dual 3GHz to a user would be much more usuefull than an 8 core 2.5GHz!
P.S. The number ONE problem that Apple must address in their pro line is the lack of Hard Drive bays! We need at least 4 HD, please! An internal 10,000 RPM RAID array is music to teh ears of pro video and film users.
fatfish
Aug 7, 09:06 PM
When I first saw this feature I thought great. I do regular back ups, but some of my AW docs keep corrupting (probably something to do with keep duplicating the same old document and modifying rather than starting anew). Time Machine will help me no end. I was also thrilled that windows had nothing like this........ until I read through these posts.
Then it seemed very similar to what was coming in Vista and I felt a bit dissapointed that Apple had made such a point about M$ copying them, but seemed to do the same themselves with Time Machine.
However on closer examination this is not the case and my confidence in Apple's innovative skills is restored.
Firstly, there has always been back up and restore apps, so if you want to take this copying thing to a ridiculous level, of course you can do. Copying in my book is when an app does and looks the same (just like the screenshots in the presentation, safari RSS/IE7 RSS, ical/M$ calender etc). It appears to me Time Machine does much more than anything before it and has it's own unique UI to boot.
Secondly, I would imagine work on Time machine started long before a beta of Vista was released, even if the two utilities were more or less identical it would be coincidence not copying.
Thirdly, it seems quite clear that Vista's restore (whatever it's called) will not do what Time machine will do. Ultimately you may well be able to restore any deleted or modified file in Vista, but it doesn't appear to occur with the same ease or functionality.
If I create a file, modify it and move it several times, rename it, convert it, modify it some more, move it several times and finally delete it, I rather suspect it would be an absolute nightmare to recover in Vista, whereas it seems that Time Machine would have little problem.
I don't see how it is possible in Vista to perform the recovery with either the same simplicity or pizzaz as Time Machine. Perhaps if M$ had not abandoned their intended file system for Vista it might have been possible, but as it is I doubt it.
Finally it does not appear that Vista has the option to restore within a database application (i.e. iphoto, mail, address book), no doubt if you understand how a particular database works, the possibility exists to restore a particular photo, but let's not pretend it will be easy or anywhere near the experience of time machine.
And finally, finally, although I agree the UI may appear a little childish, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes it so easy to use.
Then it seemed very similar to what was coming in Vista and I felt a bit dissapointed that Apple had made such a point about M$ copying them, but seemed to do the same themselves with Time Machine.
However on closer examination this is not the case and my confidence in Apple's innovative skills is restored.
Firstly, there has always been back up and restore apps, so if you want to take this copying thing to a ridiculous level, of course you can do. Copying in my book is when an app does and looks the same (just like the screenshots in the presentation, safari RSS/IE7 RSS, ical/M$ calender etc). It appears to me Time Machine does much more than anything before it and has it's own unique UI to boot.
Secondly, I would imagine work on Time machine started long before a beta of Vista was released, even if the two utilities were more or less identical it would be coincidence not copying.
Thirdly, it seems quite clear that Vista's restore (whatever it's called) will not do what Time machine will do. Ultimately you may well be able to restore any deleted or modified file in Vista, but it doesn't appear to occur with the same ease or functionality.
If I create a file, modify it and move it several times, rename it, convert it, modify it some more, move it several times and finally delete it, I rather suspect it would be an absolute nightmare to recover in Vista, whereas it seems that Time Machine would have little problem.
I don't see how it is possible in Vista to perform the recovery with either the same simplicity or pizzaz as Time Machine. Perhaps if M$ had not abandoned their intended file system for Vista it might have been possible, but as it is I doubt it.
Finally it does not appear that Vista has the option to restore within a database application (i.e. iphoto, mail, address book), no doubt if you understand how a particular database works, the possibility exists to restore a particular photo, but let's not pretend it will be easy or anywhere near the experience of time machine.
And finally, finally, although I agree the UI may appear a little childish, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes it so easy to use.
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 03:15 PM
There is a huge difference between an OS and a cellphone standard. Having two cellphone standards is like having two internets. You as a customer have no idea weather you use CDMA or GSM. I dont know about you, but I use my cell for talking end send/receive data. I dont give a rats ass whether this done through code division or time division...
Yes, but I do notice that my data transfers are about 5x faster on my EVDO phone than on my EDGE phone and I don't get nearly as many dropped calls when switching between towers like I did when I used T-Mobile and Cingular.
Yes, but I do notice that my data transfers are about 5x faster on my EVDO phone than on my EDGE phone and I don't get nearly as many dropped calls when switching between towers like I did when I used T-Mobile and Cingular.
Multimedia
Jul 20, 08:05 PM
I'm betting on Mac Pro OctaCore 2 :D
Should that "a" be an "o" ?
Should that "a" be an "o" ?
dethmaShine
Apr 20, 12:29 PM
I'd say even the icon grid claim is reaching. The pictures shown all show the Android application drawer. The actual home screen on Galaxy S devices, what shows up after unlocking, is not the icon grid with a dock. You have to dig into the phone to get to the grid of icons, which frankly again has been shown to be a pretty standard phone UI. Older Palm/Sony models had the "icon grid" UIs in their phones also. :
http://www.mobiledia.com/reviews/sonyericsson/t610/images/front.jpg
http://www.mobileincanada.com/images/unlock/att-palm-treo-600.jpg
Let's face it, the "icon grid" has been a UI for quite a while now :
http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/p/progman.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/jzzc53.png
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/system/managers/filemanager/cde15solaris9.png
And all of them had a dock too? And the page change notifier and similar styled icons?
People fail to understand that Apple isn't suing for grid layout. They are suing for the entire phone which looks just like an iPhone. Simple.
http://www.mobiledia.com/reviews/sonyericsson/t610/images/front.jpg
http://www.mobileincanada.com/images/unlock/att-palm-treo-600.jpg
Let's face it, the "icon grid" has been a UI for quite a while now :
http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/p/progman.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/jzzc53.png
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/system/managers/filemanager/cde15solaris9.png
And all of them had a dock too? And the page change notifier and similar styled icons?
People fail to understand that Apple isn't suing for grid layout. They are suing for the entire phone which looks just like an iPhone. Simple.
chasemac
Aug 7, 04:40 PM
Is Leopard going to take advantage of the 64 bit Dual G5?
SC68Cal
Sep 18, 11:12 PM
I went ahead and bought my MacBook Pro because I can't do my schoolwork without a laptop. So, I'm really not paying much attention these days about future announcements :)
ergle2
Sep 15, 12:50 PM
More pedantic details for those who are interested... :)
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
All very true, but beyond that -- if you've ever looked closely VMS and at NT, you'll notice, it's a lot more than just "influenced". The core design was pretty much identical -- the way I/O worked, its interrupt handling, the scheduler, and so on -- they're all practically carbon copies. Some of the names changed, but how things work under the hood hadn't. Since then it's evolved, of course, but you'd expect that.
Quite amusing, really... how a heavyweight enterprise-class OS of the 80's became the desktop of the 00's :)
Those that were around in the dim and distant will recall that VMS and Unix were two of the main competitors in many marketplaces in the 80's and early 90's... and today we have OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. vs XP, W2K3 Server and (soon) Vista -- kind of ironic, dontcha think? :)
Of course, there's a lot still running VMS to this very day. I don't think HP wants them to tho' -- they just sent all the support to India, apparently, to a team with relatively little experience...
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
All very true, but beyond that -- if you've ever looked closely VMS and at NT, you'll notice, it's a lot more than just "influenced". The core design was pretty much identical -- the way I/O worked, its interrupt handling, the scheduler, and so on -- they're all practically carbon copies. Some of the names changed, but how things work under the hood hadn't. Since then it's evolved, of course, but you'd expect that.
Quite amusing, really... how a heavyweight enterprise-class OS of the 80's became the desktop of the 00's :)
Those that were around in the dim and distant will recall that VMS and Unix were two of the main competitors in many marketplaces in the 80's and early 90's... and today we have OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. vs XP, W2K3 Server and (soon) Vista -- kind of ironic, dontcha think? :)
Of course, there's a lot still running VMS to this very day. I don't think HP wants them to tho' -- they just sent all the support to India, apparently, to a team with relatively little experience...
Prom1
Aug 7, 06:52 PM
Excellent SHOW Apple EXCELLENT!
I think I just creamed my shorts.
THATS the last straw NO MORE EXCUSES for not owning a MAC FULL Out.
the piggy bank is now gonna be frugal!
I think I just creamed my shorts.
THATS the last straw NO MORE EXCUSES for not owning a MAC FULL Out.
the piggy bank is now gonna be frugal!
handsome pete
Apr 6, 12:42 PM
What businesses out there can just switch operating systems on a whim because they latest and greatest came out for another platform?
Not that I disagree with what he said, but there are a good share of big post houses that had switched from Avid to FCP or vice versa. Also, from Avid/FCP/other to Adobe.
Not on a whim of course, but it's certainly not crazy to think companies will switch platforms if a better solution is out there.
Not that I disagree with what he said, but there are a good share of big post houses that had switched from Avid to FCP or vice versa. Also, from Avid/FCP/other to Adobe.
Not on a whim of course, but it's certainly not crazy to think companies will switch platforms if a better solution is out there.
X2468
Mar 26, 02:10 PM
Ignoring all else what I want is the ability to run my IOS applications on Mac OS. :)
You may get your wish soon. It appears that Lion will be Step 1 in the blending of the two OS's. A bridge. Step 2 may very well be the one & only Apple OS - based on iOS.
There's too much money in the volume sales of iPhones & iPads for Apple to focus on anything else. Other than the lip service they give their long standing computer users, the current obsession at Apple is sheer profits & volume sales of phones & pads for bragging rights and the money that goes with it.
The handwriting's been on the wall for years, ever since the company was renamed, and that fact has been underlined by the official words of Steve Jobs when he said "Post PC ERA". He was not talking about a few years from now, but mere months for Apple.
This represents the zenith of Jobs efforts. Perhaps the last item on his bucket list. To morph Apple into a huge, successful consumer electronics & entertainment business, is the goal & it's nearly complete. It wouldn't surprise me if the book is too.
You may get your wish soon. It appears that Lion will be Step 1 in the blending of the two OS's. A bridge. Step 2 may very well be the one & only Apple OS - based on iOS.
There's too much money in the volume sales of iPhones & iPads for Apple to focus on anything else. Other than the lip service they give their long standing computer users, the current obsession at Apple is sheer profits & volume sales of phones & pads for bragging rights and the money that goes with it.
The handwriting's been on the wall for years, ever since the company was renamed, and that fact has been underlined by the official words of Steve Jobs when he said "Post PC ERA". He was not talking about a few years from now, but mere months for Apple.
This represents the zenith of Jobs efforts. Perhaps the last item on his bucket list. To morph Apple into a huge, successful consumer electronics & entertainment business, is the goal & it's nearly complete. It wouldn't surprise me if the book is too.
neko girl
Mar 1, 12:30 AM
In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Your ignorance is staggering.
Your ignorance is staggering.
appleguy123
Feb 28, 06:58 PM
I have no problem being exclusionist to bad ideas like rape and paedophilia
That's not being exclusionist.
Rape and paedophilia are bad no matter who does them.
It would be exclusionist to say:
"Rape and pedophilia are bad for everyone except for Catholics"
Oh wait...
That's not being exclusionist.
Rape and paedophilia are bad no matter who does them.
It would be exclusionist to say:
"Rape and pedophilia are bad for everyone except for Catholics"
Oh wait...
S i
Sep 19, 08:24 AM
I wish this board would block automatically "************" and replace it with "************" so this tired so-called-joke would end someday.
Huh? :confused:
Nice :D
I'm going to be p*ssed right off if Apple roll out a measly chip update as this latest rumour states. They need to keep up in order to attract the switchers....& keep them. Switching can go both ways of course. Let's see some other MBP updates too, so the wait translates to something positive.
@babyj
I'll "bitch & switch" because I go where I feel I can get competitive advantage (rolling many aspects into this). I'm bitching first as a courtesy to Apple. Is it better if people slip off quietly & buy PCs? If community unhappiness hastens some kind of Macbook attention from Apple then that's great.
Huh? :confused:
Nice :D
I'm going to be p*ssed right off if Apple roll out a measly chip update as this latest rumour states. They need to keep up in order to attract the switchers....& keep them. Switching can go both ways of course. Let's see some other MBP updates too, so the wait translates to something positive.
@babyj
I'll "bitch & switch" because I go where I feel I can get competitive advantage (rolling many aspects into this). I'm bitching first as a courtesy to Apple. Is it better if people slip off quietly & buy PCs? If community unhappiness hastens some kind of Macbook attention from Apple then that's great.
portishead
Apr 5, 04:46 PM
I can't wait. Exciting times for FCP editors!
drsmithy
Sep 13, 08:41 PM
Mac OS X distributes threads and processes across cores/CPUs to optimize performance already. (Subject to some limitations, as noted already.)
[...]
(Note: I keep specifying 'Mac' here. There is a reason. Windows isn't as good at multithreading/processing yet...)
Uh, no. Windows NT is better at multithreading - and particularly multiprocessor scheduling - largely because it's been doing it for a lot longer and on a lot more powerful hardware. NT was running on quad-processor machines a decade ago.
Prior to 10.4, OS X had roughly the same level of SMP support Windows NT had back around the 1993 - 95 timeframe, with Windows NT 3.x.
The improvements in 10.4 start to put it in the ballpark of NT 4.0, ca. 1996.
10.5 will probably put it on par with Windows 2000, maybe XP.
[...]
(Note: I keep specifying 'Mac' here. There is a reason. Windows isn't as good at multithreading/processing yet...)
Uh, no. Windows NT is better at multithreading - and particularly multiprocessor scheduling - largely because it's been doing it for a lot longer and on a lot more powerful hardware. NT was running on quad-processor machines a decade ago.
Prior to 10.4, OS X had roughly the same level of SMP support Windows NT had back around the 1993 - 95 timeframe, with Windows NT 3.x.
The improvements in 10.4 start to put it in the ballpark of NT 4.0, ca. 1996.
10.5 will probably put it on par with Windows 2000, maybe XP.