daneoni
Aug 27, 04:33 PM
PS I thought the PB G5 next Tuesday thing was quite funny - precisely because it has been done to death, first dead straight (remember how excited people got for so many years), and now because it's a useful reminder not to take our speculations too seriously...
Another person who grasps it.
Another person who grasps it.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 29, 09:34 AM
Presumably because the sources are "too numerous to mention". Can't you read? :p
You'd expect the article to cite some studies when Fr. Martin's article says that those studies are too numerous to mention. And let's not forget the hint of potential bias I noticed when I read that the cited article's author was a "gay affirmative therapist." Have you guys read the undoubtedly objective reviews that Donald Trump's employees write about their boss's business savvy? :)
You'd expect the article to cite some studies when Fr. Martin's article says that those studies are too numerous to mention. And let's not forget the hint of potential bias I noticed when I read that the cited article's author was a "gay affirmative therapist." Have you guys read the undoubtedly objective reviews that Donald Trump's employees write about their boss's business savvy? :)
gnasher729
Jul 20, 01:21 PM
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
Absolutely.
The power consumption of a chip is proportional to the clock speed, multiplied by the voltage squared. So at the same voltage, a hypothetical 24 GHz chip would use eight times as much power as a single 3 GHz chip, and the same as eight 3 GHz chips.
However, with any given technology, you need higher voltage to achieve the higher clock speed. So with the same technology, that 24 GHz chip would need much much higher voltage than the 3 GHz chips and accordingly it would take much more energy than eight 3 GHz chips.
As an example, some iPods have two ARM chips running at half the clock speed and lower power instead of a single ARM chip running at higher speed, in order to safe power.
Absolutely.
The power consumption of a chip is proportional to the clock speed, multiplied by the voltage squared. So at the same voltage, a hypothetical 24 GHz chip would use eight times as much power as a single 3 GHz chip, and the same as eight 3 GHz chips.
However, with any given technology, you need higher voltage to achieve the higher clock speed. So with the same technology, that 24 GHz chip would need much much higher voltage than the 3 GHz chips and accordingly it would take much more energy than eight 3 GHz chips.
As an example, some iPods have two ARM chips running at half the clock speed and lower power instead of a single ARM chip running at higher speed, in order to safe power.
ergle2
Sep 13, 02:40 PM
So what do you think they meant with M/C/W being a derived arch and Penryn,etc being unified archs?
From what I understood, they'll stop having different characteristics (FSB,RAM,Cache) and instead just differentiate them with MHz and core count. Hence all the stories that future Intel chips (starting with Penryn I presume) won't use FSB.
I believe you've got it backwards. Penryn is a derived arch (check the diagram) -- it's derived from Conroe/Merom, etc., ie it's based on them with "more" -- faster FSB, more cache, a die shrink (which is technically less... :) ) etc.
Unified just means the micro-arch itself the same rather than the entire CPU. This is already true of Core2, and is significantly cheaper in terms production costs. Merom/Conroe are literally the same core in a different package, specified for different voltage/clockspeeds. I'm not sure if Woodcrest is but it seems highly likely.
The one oddity I am aware of is Allendale isn't a Conroe with half the cache disabled, it's actually a specific die. The rest of the microarch itself is the same, however.
Nehalem, etc. aren't derived because they're a new microarch. (Interestingly, Nehalem was originally intended for launch early 2007).
CSI replacing FSB was originally planned for 2006 in older roadmaps. It now looks like a 2008 debut with Tukwila (Itanium, not x86), and will no doubt work its way down from there.
From what I understood, they'll stop having different characteristics (FSB,RAM,Cache) and instead just differentiate them with MHz and core count. Hence all the stories that future Intel chips (starting with Penryn I presume) won't use FSB.
I believe you've got it backwards. Penryn is a derived arch (check the diagram) -- it's derived from Conroe/Merom, etc., ie it's based on them with "more" -- faster FSB, more cache, a die shrink (which is technically less... :) ) etc.
Unified just means the micro-arch itself the same rather than the entire CPU. This is already true of Core2, and is significantly cheaper in terms production costs. Merom/Conroe are literally the same core in a different package, specified for different voltage/clockspeeds. I'm not sure if Woodcrest is but it seems highly likely.
The one oddity I am aware of is Allendale isn't a Conroe with half the cache disabled, it's actually a specific die. The rest of the microarch itself is the same, however.
Nehalem, etc. aren't derived because they're a new microarch. (Interestingly, Nehalem was originally intended for launch early 2007).
CSI replacing FSB was originally planned for 2006 in older roadmaps. It now looks like a 2008 debut with Tukwila (Itanium, not x86), and will no doubt work its way down from there.
silverblue3
Aug 25, 04:24 PM
Granted, there are problems with the mac hardware. but till date, I've found apple tech support excellent. They have always replaced my hardware with no questions asked. In fact, they replaced my whole LCD screen on my 3 year old powerbook just because of a white spot.
myemosoul
Jun 12, 10:32 PM
I sold my 16GB 3GS to my local Radio Shack on 6/9 for 184.13 and I'm currently using my old Motorola Razr V3, I'm preordering on the 15th so i certainly hope that i will be holding an iPhone 4 on the 24th. Since i sold my phone I've gotten two phone calls from the store manager, the first one was to ask if I was ok with him putiing my name and phone number on a list of people planning to pre-order and the second call was to ask for my zip code and he told me that he's almost positive i will be getting one on release day which was reassuring. I'm pretty nervous because pretty much all my experiences with Radio Shack have been sketchy over the years, sometime it's really annoying like when i went in one to buy something stupid like CDR's and the associate said i had to be in their system in order to make the sale which required me giving him my name, number and address which i thought was ridiculous.
So far everything is going well this time, when the 3GS came out ATT wouldn't bump up my upgrade date because my bill was under 100 dollars a month, this time they bumped everyone's upgrade date by 6 months! So instead of the 400 bucks i had to pay for my 3GS i will only pay 200 and with the 185 Radio Shack paid for my 3GS it will only be 15 dollars!
Is it true that i'm going to have to pay the $18 dollar upgrade fee at Radio Shack? Apple never charged me that. Or does it get charged to you cell phone bill?
So if Im getting this right....I bring my 3GS to Radio Shack on the 15th to preorder the iphone 4 and then I have to turn in my old phone in order to get the buy back gift card? But then I would be without a phone for over a week? My local Radio Shack said I could get $256 for my 3gs. But if I read right that price could go down the closer it gets to the ip4 launch?
Thanks
So far everything is going well this time, when the 3GS came out ATT wouldn't bump up my upgrade date because my bill was under 100 dollars a month, this time they bumped everyone's upgrade date by 6 months! So instead of the 400 bucks i had to pay for my 3GS i will only pay 200 and with the 185 Radio Shack paid for my 3GS it will only be 15 dollars!
Is it true that i'm going to have to pay the $18 dollar upgrade fee at Radio Shack? Apple never charged me that. Or does it get charged to you cell phone bill?
So if Im getting this right....I bring my 3GS to Radio Shack on the 15th to preorder the iphone 4 and then I have to turn in my old phone in order to get the buy back gift card? But then I would be without a phone for over a week? My local Radio Shack said I could get $256 for my 3gs. But if I read right that price could go down the closer it gets to the ip4 launch?
Thanks
maelstromr
Apr 25, 03:18 PM
So an old post says apple is exploiting them and you imply I said that then? I said on numerous occasions clearly that this is not about Apple using this data. Interesting way to quote posts you have there:rolleyes:
Now I'm confused - YOU quote MY post replying to someone suggesting exactly that Apple is exploiting customers through this, and now I'm selectively quoting you?
Though I am skeptical, to say the least, of YOUR point as well, it's not nearly as ridiculous as the people who DO claim Apple is trying to get people.
Now I'm confused - YOU quote MY post replying to someone suggesting exactly that Apple is exploiting customers through this, and now I'm selectively quoting you?
Though I am skeptical, to say the least, of YOUR point as well, it's not nearly as ridiculous as the people who DO claim Apple is trying to get people.
damnyooneek
Apr 6, 10:25 AM
"But I JUST bought this..."
"3D, 3D, 3D."
"Wait... 4D?"
"You bought the wrong one dummy..."
"3D, 3D, 3D."
"Wait... 4D?"
"You bought the wrong one dummy..."
ryanx27
Aug 27, 10:30 PM
Hey for what its worth, i understand where you're coming from Zadillo BUT some people still find the joke funny and therefore it deserves to be told.
You know what, I found it funny before going into this thread, and now I don't. :rolleyes:
You know what, I found it funny before going into this thread, and now I don't. :rolleyes:
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?
nukiduz
Aug 7, 05:15 PM
From Vista Help:
"Previous versions of files and folders are copies that Windows automatically saves as part of a restore point. Any file or folder that was modified since the last restore point was made (usually 24 hours earlier) is saved and made available as a previous version. You can use previous versions of files to restore files that you accidentally modified or deleted, or that were damaged."
I can use this now but without childish animations. Simple right-click the folder and select "restore previous versions".
For me the Leopard preview was a big disappointment. No innovative features but silly Vista bashing all the time. Come on, Apple!
What about flash drives? Meta data organisation in Finder? Media streams over local networks? Better window management? Spaces is the next answere to the incomplete Dockbar-conception (Expos� was the first and Time Maschine is a next interface ornateness).
Preview and network-wide search in Spotlight? Who is copying here?
I can't believe that: but now Vista looks innovativ!
i completely agree. just hope that the top secret thing makes us think other way.
"Previous versions of files and folders are copies that Windows automatically saves as part of a restore point. Any file or folder that was modified since the last restore point was made (usually 24 hours earlier) is saved and made available as a previous version. You can use previous versions of files to restore files that you accidentally modified or deleted, or that were damaged."
I can use this now but without childish animations. Simple right-click the folder and select "restore previous versions".
For me the Leopard preview was a big disappointment. No innovative features but silly Vista bashing all the time. Come on, Apple!
What about flash drives? Meta data organisation in Finder? Media streams over local networks? Better window management? Spaces is the next answere to the incomplete Dockbar-conception (Expos� was the first and Time Maschine is a next interface ornateness).
Preview and network-wide search in Spotlight? Who is copying here?
I can't believe that: but now Vista looks innovativ!
i completely agree. just hope that the top secret thing makes us think other way.
SlavKO
Jun 9, 01:32 PM
Hey, this is not possible because based on the number of preorders from each store is what determines how many get sent to each store. and if you order from store #1, a phone will be sent to store#1 specifically for you.
:)
Thx for the info. Would it be possible to call and preorder from the store I want to pick it up from even if it isnt in my state?
:)
Thx for the info. Would it be possible to call and preorder from the store I want to pick it up from even if it isnt in my state?
waldobushman
Mar 26, 02:30 PM
There will be some GUI changes. No big deal.
OS X Lion will merge client and server versions.
iOS will run under OS X with separate A5 emulator
New cloud/MobileMe/iTunes support and software refactoring
Java will still be included by default
Cellular hardware support in OS X
Support for untethered sync between computer and iPad/iPhone
OS X will better support headless operation and strong connectivity between OS X and iOS devices.
OS X Lion will merge client and server versions.
iOS will run under OS X with separate A5 emulator
New cloud/MobileMe/iTunes support and software refactoring
Java will still be included by default
Cellular hardware support in OS X
Support for untethered sync between computer and iPad/iPhone
OS X will better support headless operation and strong connectivity between OS X and iOS devices.
Koufax80
Apr 25, 02:41 PM
Damnit! I just looked outside and saw Steve Jobs with a clipboard... Apple must have sent him to track my location since I turned my phone off...
laidbackliam
Aug 7, 10:39 AM
I'd like to see your "Mac" model bumped up past the iMac. I think a lot of people, myself included, would pay a premium for the ability to upgrade. In fact, I wouldn't care if they didn't offer a completely new model as long as they offer some "affordable" manifestations of the Mac Pro. So how's this (and go easy on me here because I rarely delve into the technical aspect of things):
-Squire
yes, but i see the price point being under the iMac still. but again, this is just something i'd LIKE to see, and don't expect. and i know some people would pay a premium. but i'm not some people.
-Squire
yes, but i see the price point being under the iMac still. but again, this is just something i'd LIKE to see, and don't expect. and i know some people would pay a premium. but i'm not some people.
Willis
Jul 27, 03:58 PM
It's always a little alarming when a post starts "sorry if I missed it but..."
The 2.7 G5 will be the highest clocked chip in a mac for a while, but probably not the fastest. In a number of benchmarks, Yonah has already beaten dual G5's, the conroes and woodrests will likely widen the gap even more.
true.... didnt the Macbook outrun a G5 in final cut studio or something?
The 2.7 G5 will be the highest clocked chip in a mac for a while, but probably not the fastest. In a number of benchmarks, Yonah has already beaten dual G5's, the conroes and woodrests will likely widen the gap even more.
true.... didnt the Macbook outrun a G5 in final cut studio or something?
lOUDsCREAMEr
Jul 27, 03:19 PM
T minus 11 days...............
Cant wait.
i always wonder what does that T stand for??:confused:
Cant wait.
i always wonder what does that T stand for??:confused:
xxBURT0Nxx
Apr 7, 09:20 AM
I'm getting tired of Apple Mac's being INTEL's BIATCH!
Integrated graphics on a laptop costing THAT MUCH? PLEASE!
Steve Jobs should threaten to switch to AMD/ATI solutions even if just for leverage with Intel to get discreet graphics chips in these machines.
If this is true, this is a pathetic technology compromise in my opinion.
I would say the decision not to use discrete graphics is apples in order to save room inside the machine and make it small. If you want discrete graphics you can buy a macbook pro...? You make it seem like intel told apple they can't use the sb chips unless they use the IGP, which is obviously false. You are paying for the small, lightweight, portable laptop with the air, obviously not what's inside of it, save for maybe the SSD.
Integrated graphics on a laptop costing THAT MUCH? PLEASE!
Steve Jobs should threaten to switch to AMD/ATI solutions even if just for leverage with Intel to get discreet graphics chips in these machines.
If this is true, this is a pathetic technology compromise in my opinion.
I would say the decision not to use discrete graphics is apples in order to save room inside the machine and make it small. If you want discrete graphics you can buy a macbook pro...? You make it seem like intel told apple they can't use the sb chips unless they use the IGP, which is obviously false. You are paying for the small, lightweight, portable laptop with the air, obviously not what's inside of it, save for maybe the SSD.
Peace
Aug 7, 11:32 PM
Woah! This is heavy stuff. Lot of eye candy in Core Animation :cool:
Did you go to WWDC or D/L Leopard?
Did you go to WWDC or D/L Leopard?
kugino
Aug 7, 11:45 PM
Well I for one was kind of disappointed. Leopard is sort of Apple's chance to prove they can out-Vista Vista, and I'm not really sure what we saw today does it. I've been following Vista somewhat closely, and it really does catch Windows up to OS X in terms of features and prettiness.
I really think most of the features shown off today are already present in Windows (I've definitely heard about all of them before) or will be in Vista, and it's too bad Apple didn't have anything truly innovative to show us. Hopefully those secret features are something good...
The other thing that has me a little concerned is the huge amount of Vista-bashing that went on. I feel like if Leopard at this point were truly better than Vista, they'd be silent about Vista entirely and let the new system speak for itself. That would be really slick. That's not what happened however, and instead there was a lot of "look what Vista copied from us" and "check out how much better Leopard is." What I saw today, though, makes the former statement sound whiney and the latter sound foolish, since in my eyes, in terms of features, they're about on-par with each other.
I really hope Apple pulls it together. They've got to do this right, because come next year, most of the myriad reasons for switching to a Mac will be nullified by Vista.
BTW: whoever this "Platform Experience" guy is, get him off the stage and go back to Steve.
hmmm, most of the features are already in windows? what version of windows do you have? are you from the future? and, ummm, who knows what's going to be in vista because it keeps changing...even what you see now may not make the final cut. to say that the two OSs are the same because they both have the same features is akin to saying that a yugo and a mercedes are both the same because they both have four wheels and an engine. look, there are things that vista will have that osx will lack...there are things in osx that vista will lack. neither os will be perfect. still, os x is great because of its underlying architecture and not only b/c of this feature or that feature.
and most people will not be making their buying decision on which os is better...the greater selling point on the mac is boot camp and booting windows on the mac. most people aren't going to care what os is better.
I really think most of the features shown off today are already present in Windows (I've definitely heard about all of them before) or will be in Vista, and it's too bad Apple didn't have anything truly innovative to show us. Hopefully those secret features are something good...
The other thing that has me a little concerned is the huge amount of Vista-bashing that went on. I feel like if Leopard at this point were truly better than Vista, they'd be silent about Vista entirely and let the new system speak for itself. That would be really slick. That's not what happened however, and instead there was a lot of "look what Vista copied from us" and "check out how much better Leopard is." What I saw today, though, makes the former statement sound whiney and the latter sound foolish, since in my eyes, in terms of features, they're about on-par with each other.
I really hope Apple pulls it together. They've got to do this right, because come next year, most of the myriad reasons for switching to a Mac will be nullified by Vista.
BTW: whoever this "Platform Experience" guy is, get him off the stage and go back to Steve.
hmmm, most of the features are already in windows? what version of windows do you have? are you from the future? and, ummm, who knows what's going to be in vista because it keeps changing...even what you see now may not make the final cut. to say that the two OSs are the same because they both have the same features is akin to saying that a yugo and a mercedes are both the same because they both have four wheels and an engine. look, there are things that vista will have that osx will lack...there are things in osx that vista will lack. neither os will be perfect. still, os x is great because of its underlying architecture and not only b/c of this feature or that feature.
and most people will not be making their buying decision on which os is better...the greater selling point on the mac is boot camp and booting windows on the mac. most people aren't going to care what os is better.
HecubusPro
Aug 27, 09:37 PM
Sifting through this thread can make one either optimistic or irrational, depending on who you ask. One point I found absent among the discussion was the possibility of a Core 2 Duo machine coinciding with the September 16th iPod offer end date.
Makes sense to me, but then I tend to get shouted down a lot in this forum. ;)
What about simply rational? It's easy to become excited at the prospect of shiny new merom macs ready to hit store shelves tomorrow or tuesday, but I think that's premature. The rational part of me, which has taken over the part of me that's flipping out excited, says we'll see them within three to four weeks. I know that's disappointing to a lot of people, but if you have read through these posts, and the macforums front page, I think it's easy to surmise that that will be the case.
Of course, I would love for my MBP merom to hit stores tomorrow, so if I'm wrong, I'll eat a raw potato. :p But I don't see anything wrong with saying new merom systems will ship by the 16th to take advantage of the Nano promotion. In fact, I bet Apple is probably scrambling to make sure that is the case.
But don't be fooled by my rational side too much. I've already bought a .mac account and a cool new backpack to house my MBP when it finally does ship. I'm about ready to jump out of my skin I'm so excited.:D
EDIT: Wow! I just made "macforums member!" :cool:
Makes sense to me, but then I tend to get shouted down a lot in this forum. ;)
What about simply rational? It's easy to become excited at the prospect of shiny new merom macs ready to hit store shelves tomorrow or tuesday, but I think that's premature. The rational part of me, which has taken over the part of me that's flipping out excited, says we'll see them within three to four weeks. I know that's disappointing to a lot of people, but if you have read through these posts, and the macforums front page, I think it's easy to surmise that that will be the case.
Of course, I would love for my MBP merom to hit stores tomorrow, so if I'm wrong, I'll eat a raw potato. :p But I don't see anything wrong with saying new merom systems will ship by the 16th to take advantage of the Nano promotion. In fact, I bet Apple is probably scrambling to make sure that is the case.
But don't be fooled by my rational side too much. I've already bought a .mac account and a cool new backpack to house my MBP when it finally does ship. I'm about ready to jump out of my skin I'm so excited.:D
EDIT: Wow! I just made "macforums member!" :cool:
rufwork
Apr 8, 12:05 AM
Screwing around is how they lost Macs in the first place. They wanted to only sell certain iMac Colors and Apple said you can sell what we send or not at all, that's why Apple left them in the first place years ago. Then they cam back with the "store in a store" concept.
I think the deal was that they had to sell the same number of each color, so if they got a shipment of 10 of each and had 5 limeys left over, they couldn't order 10 more of, say, blue until limey was gone.
Right? (And I owned a lime iMac, so quit your whinin'! :D)
I think the deal was that they had to sell the same number of each color, so if they got a shipment of 10 of each and had 5 limeys left over, they couldn't order 10 more of, say, blue until limey was gone.
Right? (And I owned a lime iMac, so quit your whinin'! :D)
Krevnik
Jul 27, 01:13 PM
will apple lower the actual prices of macs?
intel is about to cut 61% of the prices of core duo's...
Probably not, except maybe the Mini. Expect chips to shove down the product line, rather than Apple to mess with the pricing structure. And at best, any price drop would be 10% or less, on average, because of the cost of the other components.
intel is about to cut 61% of the prices of core duo's...
Probably not, except maybe the Mini. Expect chips to shove down the product line, rather than Apple to mess with the pricing structure. And at best, any price drop would be 10% or less, on average, because of the cost of the other components.
sam10685
Aug 11, 01:19 PM
Now what I WANT that might not happen:
8) Lightweight, small FF
that would be a definite for Apple... also, i think this thing will be really really awesome considering the fact that Steve Jobs himself is already boasting about it... he never does that prior to a release. (unless he's previewing something for us like he just did with Leopard.)
8) Lightweight, small FF
that would be a definite for Apple... also, i think this thing will be really really awesome considering the fact that Steve Jobs himself is already boasting about it... he never does that prior to a release. (unless he's previewing something for us like he just did with Leopard.)
