valiar
Jul 27, 01:02 PM
Ouch.
And I have just bought a 2.16 GHz MacBook Pro.
I know what everybody would say - "buy the machine that is available now". That is what I am saying to myself.
Still - ouch :(
And I have just bought a 2.16 GHz MacBook Pro.
I know what everybody would say - "buy the machine that is available now". That is what I am saying to myself.
Still - ouch :(
ECUpirate44
Apr 11, 11:38 AM
If the iPhone 5 has a bigger screen and 4G connectivity it will be worth it. I can't imagine Apple will release another phone with only 3G with all these Verizon 4G phones coming onto the market.
Right. If their going to wait until late summer or fall, it will surely be 4G.
Right. If their going to wait until late summer or fall, it will surely be 4G.
OzyOly
Apr 6, 11:43 AM
Can't wait. Shall be my new Work machine. :)
takao
Dec 3, 05:28 PM
I've started rally a bit today while i save up for a car with a bit more balls. Rally is completely sublime. I am loving every second of it. I had no problem with the dirt and snow tracks, but the tarmac rally is giving me some trouble. I use an 06 Focus ST that is around 215hp, so i can bump up the HP and still compete in the series. I might just have to do that.
same here .. on tarmac level there always seems to be 1 car in the bunch who will cause me troubles with being really fast
same here .. on tarmac level there always seems to be 1 car in the bunch who will cause me troubles with being really fast
Doctor Q
Jul 14, 03:07 PM
Power Supply at the top is REALLY stupid.Why? What are the advantages/disadvantages to having it higher or lower in the case? Does the weight distribution matter?
typecase
Sep 19, 12:33 AM
All I have to say is:
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
Amen! :)
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
Amen! :)
skunk
Feb 28, 07:12 PM
2) okay, they can pretend to get marriedNo, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
Blaze3555
Apr 10, 02:16 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) Mobile/8G4)
Did any One catch the quote about the puck. For a split second I got exited because I thought it was Kevin Smith. I love his podcasts. Execp he talk about only using Avid because Fcp docent have a big enough time line. But Let's all go inside! Lol
Did any One catch the quote about the puck. For a split second I got exited because I thought it was Kevin Smith. I love his podcasts. Execp he talk about only using Avid because Fcp docent have a big enough time line. But Let's all go inside! Lol
basesloaded190
Apr 6, 11:03 AM
I am shocked that anyone finds this as a positive.
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
You obviously don't know how powerful SB actually is compared to C2D
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
You obviously don't know how powerful SB actually is compared to C2D
Glideslope
Mar 31, 06:14 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.
Fragmentation, more control, more fragmentation, more control, more......
Microsoft, Vista, more Microsoft, more Vista, more.....
Too late. What comes after Honey Comb will be the test. Honey Comb = Mobile Vista. :apple:
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.
Fragmentation, more control, more fragmentation, more control, more......
Microsoft, Vista, more Microsoft, more Vista, more.....
Too late. What comes after Honey Comb will be the test. Honey Comb = Mobile Vista. :apple:
SiliconAddict
Aug 6, 11:36 PM
I'm not a long time apple user, and don't know about the classic to OS X transition, but i do know that 2 service packs and bug fixes every month did nothing to XP, hence my move to OS X. So, ok i assumed that this will be the same case with vista, but considering the fact that (i think) concept viruses have already been written, and that microsoft really are up against the clock; i think that for at least the first year vista will be hellish.
After that, ok, maybe things will change, but it seems to me that this isn't the biggest upgrade ever (i'm an end user, and mainly use PC's for web-browsing and school work, so i haven't seen any major good things in vista) and microsoft have struggled to get it out. (sorry kinda off topic)
I've been using and supporting every version of Windows since 2.0 including Windows NT and 2003 server and while the casual user may not have noticed much difference between XP Pro, XP Pro SP1, and XP Pro SP2 but as someone who manages desktop/laptop images for corp distribution I can tell you right now there has been massive changes in the last 5 years but nothing that is visible from the surface either. Its the same as OS X. While you might not see it more and more of the graphics subsystem has been shifted from the CPU to the GPU with something like 99% of it on the GPU in Tiger.
After that, ok, maybe things will change, but it seems to me that this isn't the biggest upgrade ever (i'm an end user, and mainly use PC's for web-browsing and school work, so i haven't seen any major good things in vista) and microsoft have struggled to get it out. (sorry kinda off topic)
I've been using and supporting every version of Windows since 2.0 including Windows NT and 2003 server and while the casual user may not have noticed much difference between XP Pro, XP Pro SP1, and XP Pro SP2 but as someone who manages desktop/laptop images for corp distribution I can tell you right now there has been massive changes in the last 5 years but nothing that is visible from the surface either. Its the same as OS X. While you might not see it more and more of the graphics subsystem has been shifted from the CPU to the GPU with something like 99% of it on the GPU in Tiger.
4God
Jul 27, 10:00 AM
My credit card is melting just thinking about WWDC. :D
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.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 8, 04:59 AM
This is such a B.S. story. Apple to BB is like a minor star in the galaxy; if it goes out few will notice. Remember all those years BB didn't sell Apple products and did fine? Apple just doesn't have that kind of pull with a big box store. And every manufacturer knows that getting stores to behave as they'd like them to is like hearding cats.
Until Apple can get more of its own stores it needs BB more than BB needs it. So I doubt Apple went all hurt or p.o.'d girlfriend on them.
Until Apple can get more of its own stores it needs BB more than BB needs it. So I doubt Apple went all hurt or p.o.'d girlfriend on them.
Rend It
Aug 5, 05:42 PM
I'm finally excited about Apple again! After the MacBook Pro quality issues and the underwhelming iPod Hifi announcement, I was starting to feel a little let down. Now, I just chock it up to a lull in output due to the Intel transition. I don't think WWDC will be the panacea that some want it to be, but I think Leopard alone will be enough to make us happy. Think about it:
-The first "from-the-ground-up" universal binary Mac OS
-True 64-bit support (yeah, the Core 1 Duos are 32-bit, but by the time Leopard is released, new models will have chips with 64-bit extensions).
-Redesigned Finder (I hope)
-Adjustable screen resolution (again, I hope)
-others that we may not even know about!!
Beyond that, I'm sure we'll see the Mac Pros, Xserves, and display updates. Maybe, and only maybe, we'll see a small update to the MBPs to Merom and features like magnetic display latches already in the MacBook.
And from a purely aesthetic standpoint, how does it make sense for Apple to put the IR sensor on the case of the Mac Pro? In terms of Human interface, isn't it much more desirable to point the remote at the display? It would only require a USB connection. Finally, I think if there's any support for Front Row in the Mac Pros or Xserves, then the displays must have built-in iSight.
Just my 2 cents. :)
-The first "from-the-ground-up" universal binary Mac OS
-True 64-bit support (yeah, the Core 1 Duos are 32-bit, but by the time Leopard is released, new models will have chips with 64-bit extensions).
-Redesigned Finder (I hope)
-Adjustable screen resolution (again, I hope)
-others that we may not even know about!!
Beyond that, I'm sure we'll see the Mac Pros, Xserves, and display updates. Maybe, and only maybe, we'll see a small update to the MBPs to Merom and features like magnetic display latches already in the MacBook.
And from a purely aesthetic standpoint, how does it make sense for Apple to put the IR sensor on the case of the Mac Pro? In terms of Human interface, isn't it much more desirable to point the remote at the display? It would only require a USB connection. Finally, I think if there's any support for Front Row in the Mac Pros or Xserves, then the displays must have built-in iSight.
Just my 2 cents. :)
sam10685
Jul 27, 10:14 PM
(I hate P4s)
you can't make a statement like that. that's like saying "i hate general electric air conditioners." what the heck? all CPU's (and air conditioners) do the same thing.
you can't make a statement like that. that's like saying "i hate general electric air conditioners." what the heck? all CPU's (and air conditioners) do the same thing.
Rodimus Prime
Feb 28, 09:12 PM
Very sorry.
I have dyslexia, so I read sentences in my head, not words. When the words fit, my brain just makes that model of what it thinks the text said.
Sorry for getting mad. :o
I have dyslexia as well. Word of advise. When ever something gets you all mad like that always and I repeat ALWAYS re read it a few times before posting. I have caught myself a few times. Not that it always works.
I was about to say something but saw another posted did.
what it does show is that the brain is wired a certain way. I personally believe homosexallity is both a choice and genetic.
We all fall on a scale that goes from complete homosexaul to straight. Now majority of people are much closer to the straight side and all clustered over there. Then people who are spread out across the all the way to the other end. I do not know how many fall in the bi range compared to complete homosexual cluster.
What this means is some people are much more predisposed to be homosexual than others.
I will repeat there is nothing wrong with it and I have said before they should have the right be married. We have little control over who we are attracted to. We can over ride it somewhat but only to a point. Mostly it feel we take the predisposition and induld it and we go that way.
I have dyslexia, so I read sentences in my head, not words. When the words fit, my brain just makes that model of what it thinks the text said.
Sorry for getting mad. :o
I have dyslexia as well. Word of advise. When ever something gets you all mad like that always and I repeat ALWAYS re read it a few times before posting. I have caught myself a few times. Not that it always works.
I was about to say something but saw another posted did.
what it does show is that the brain is wired a certain way. I personally believe homosexallity is both a choice and genetic.
We all fall on a scale that goes from complete homosexaul to straight. Now majority of people are much closer to the straight side and all clustered over there. Then people who are spread out across the all the way to the other end. I do not know how many fall in the bi range compared to complete homosexual cluster.
What this means is some people are much more predisposed to be homosexual than others.
I will repeat there is nothing wrong with it and I have said before they should have the right be married. We have little control over who we are attracted to. We can over ride it somewhat but only to a point. Mostly it feel we take the predisposition and induld it and we go that way.
Multimedia
Aug 18, 06:50 PM
So what apps will saturate all four cores or at least get close to it, on either a quad G5 or quad xeon? Are there any?
Are there any apps that really take advantage of four cores on their own?Toast 7.1 UB can use more than two cores. In my test at the Apple stopre last Saturday I saw Toast 7.1 UB use more than 3 - between 2.3 and 3.1 cores all the time on the Mac Pro. It also uses more than two on the Quad G5 - just barely. Handbrake is not yet optimized for Mac Pro and uses a little less than two on both. That use of two is negatively impacted as soon as you start doiong something else especially both Toast and Handbrake at once.
But in future it will use all four. The problem with that "test" you so highly value, is that the testers didn't have a Quad to compare to, so they didn't even search out applications that are already "Quad Core Ready" - that would make a nice bullet on a software package wouldn't it?
Better yet: "MultiCore Ready".
If you don't think you are going to ever use more than one thing at a time, then you are right. But I think most of us here have 10-15 things open at once and do all sorts of things at once. That's the reason for "Spaces" in Loepard.
Are there any apps that really take advantage of four cores on their own?Toast 7.1 UB can use more than two cores. In my test at the Apple stopre last Saturday I saw Toast 7.1 UB use more than 3 - between 2.3 and 3.1 cores all the time on the Mac Pro. It also uses more than two on the Quad G5 - just barely. Handbrake is not yet optimized for Mac Pro and uses a little less than two on both. That use of two is negatively impacted as soon as you start doiong something else especially both Toast and Handbrake at once.
But in future it will use all four. The problem with that "test" you so highly value, is that the testers didn't have a Quad to compare to, so they didn't even search out applications that are already "Quad Core Ready" - that would make a nice bullet on a software package wouldn't it?
Better yet: "MultiCore Ready".
If you don't think you are going to ever use more than one thing at a time, then you are right. But I think most of us here have 10-15 things open at once and do all sorts of things at once. That's the reason for "Spaces" in Loepard.
Demoman
Aug 5, 08:22 PM
More speculation than rumour, but for Leopard I'd bet on:
-Resolution Independent UI http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2006/5/22/4065
-Quartz 2D Extreme http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/14
Honestly, I'm surprised they're not in the rumour roundup.
David :cool:
Thanks for the links, Dave! I found them both very informative, especially the one on Quartz 2 Extreme.
Do you have any feel for when we will see a roll-out of the pro apps? I recall quite a bit of rumor-mongering just before the Intel announcement. Since then it has been rather silent. I thought the sudden drop in Quake might be a precursor to something fairly soon??
-Resolution Independent UI http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2006/5/22/4065
-Quartz 2D Extreme http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/14
Honestly, I'm surprised they're not in the rumour roundup.
David :cool:
Thanks for the links, Dave! I found them both very informative, especially the one on Quartz 2 Extreme.
Do you have any feel for when we will see a roll-out of the pro apps? I recall quite a bit of rumor-mongering just before the Intel announcement. Since then it has been rather silent. I thought the sudden drop in Quake might be a precursor to something fairly soon??
RebootD
Mar 31, 05:24 PM
What?
Just speaking to your 'year of the linux' quote that's all.
Just speaking to your 'year of the linux' quote that's all.
kavika411
Mar 24, 01:00 PM
I believe a lot of the anti-Obama crap spewed by the Tea Party and Republicans is based more on his race than his party.
Oh. So when a person criticizes Obama for keeping us in Afghanistan, Iraq, and/or Libya, just level an accusation of racism.
Got it.
Oh. So when a person criticizes Obama for keeping us in Afghanistan, Iraq, and/or Libya, just level an accusation of racism.
Got it.
Mr. Retrofire
Apr 6, 07:54 PM
Let me be clear - FCS needs a robust blu-ray authoring feature.
Useless without error correcting reference hardware/software. No one has seen this reference hardware or drivers for it in the Apple environment. Only a few specialized companies use the expensive reference hardware for true BD-authoring. It is the same situation as on the Audio-CD market.
Btw, Sonys BluPrint 6 (http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/bluprint) software costs 80.000 US$. And this is just the software. I do not think we will see similar features in FCP or FCS.
Useless without error correcting reference hardware/software. No one has seen this reference hardware or drivers for it in the Apple environment. Only a few specialized companies use the expensive reference hardware for true BD-authoring. It is the same situation as on the Audio-CD market.
Btw, Sonys BluPrint 6 (http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/bluprint) software costs 80.000 US$. And this is just the software. I do not think we will see similar features in FCP or FCS.
MacRumors
Sep 13, 06:49 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
AnandTech took (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6) a Mac Pro, which comes with two Dual-Core Xeon (Woodcrest) processors and replaced them with samples of two Quad-Core Xeon (Clovertown) processors.
We grabbed a pair of 2.4GHz Clovertown samples and tossed them in the system, and to our pleasure, they worked just fine. Our samples used a 1066MHz FSB, although we're expecting the final chip to use a 1333MHz FSB, but the most important part of the test is that all 8 cores were detected and functional.
The Mac Pro appeared to run fine with the Quad-Core processors, effectively givem them a 8-Core machine. While they are unable to give performance numbers due to non-disclosure agreements, the machine was reportedly stable. It also gives hope for current Mac Pro owners that they will be able to later upgrade the processors on their machine in the future. Clovertown Quad-core processors are expected to be available in late 2006.
AnandTech took (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6) a Mac Pro, which comes with two Dual-Core Xeon (Woodcrest) processors and replaced them with samples of two Quad-Core Xeon (Clovertown) processors.
We grabbed a pair of 2.4GHz Clovertown samples and tossed them in the system, and to our pleasure, they worked just fine. Our samples used a 1066MHz FSB, although we're expecting the final chip to use a 1333MHz FSB, but the most important part of the test is that all 8 cores were detected and functional.
The Mac Pro appeared to run fine with the Quad-Core processors, effectively givem them a 8-Core machine. While they are unable to give performance numbers due to non-disclosure agreements, the machine was reportedly stable. It also gives hope for current Mac Pro owners that they will be able to later upgrade the processors on their machine in the future. Clovertown Quad-core processors are expected to be available in late 2006.
cult hero
Mar 26, 03:59 PM
Details found here :
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-removes-Samba-from-Mac-OS-X-10-7-Server-1215179.html
Gist of it :
- less features than Samba
- no more Active Directory Services
- Just file sharing now.
Samba developers have also noted that the true motive behind this move might not be the GPLv3 per say, but a more global move away from the GPL. Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Anyway, Samba v4 could have given them all the "features" they implemented and much more. Their own in-house version won't necessarily be better just because it's written by Apple. The Samba team does a great job with what Microsoft puts out as documentation (if you can even call it that).
Note that from the article, this change only impacts OS X Server. The client was already an in-house solution.
Ick. None of that is good news. Although their current implementation of Samba is old anyway. Things aren't going to get worse... they're just not going to get any better. That's a bummer.
Looks like I'll continue using Linux for my domain controllers then. (Not that I take issue with this.)
Personally, I think it's GPL3. Apple isn't the only company reacting negatively to it. Who knows though? I certainly don't.
On the upside that means Apple won't advertise that their server will work as a domain controller anymore which they do now despite the fact that nowhere do they say, "Hey, only old NT4 style domains that don't work for modern Windows clients."
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-removes-Samba-from-Mac-OS-X-10-7-Server-1215179.html
Gist of it :
- less features than Samba
- no more Active Directory Services
- Just file sharing now.
Samba developers have also noted that the true motive behind this move might not be the GPLv3 per say, but a more global move away from the GPL. Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Anyway, Samba v4 could have given them all the "features" they implemented and much more. Their own in-house version won't necessarily be better just because it's written by Apple. The Samba team does a great job with what Microsoft puts out as documentation (if you can even call it that).
Note that from the article, this change only impacts OS X Server. The client was already an in-house solution.
Ick. None of that is good news. Although their current implementation of Samba is old anyway. Things aren't going to get worse... they're just not going to get any better. That's a bummer.
Looks like I'll continue using Linux for my domain controllers then. (Not that I take issue with this.)
Personally, I think it's GPL3. Apple isn't the only company reacting negatively to it. Who knows though? I certainly don't.
On the upside that means Apple won't advertise that their server will work as a domain controller anymore which they do now despite the fact that nowhere do they say, "Hey, only old NT4 style domains that don't work for modern Windows clients."