840quadra
Apr 25, 02:55 PM
I love how Media and most everyone was asleep about this known issue, until just recently, and now it is some kind of emergency.
I am not an Apple apologist by any means, but it is NOT their fault if people are not securely backing up, their personal and private data.
Apple's only fault (IMHO) is not encrypting the location logfile on the phone, or the system with regards to backups. Regardless, security of data is the end user's responsibility, not the manufacturer of their computer or software.
I am not an Apple apologist by any means, but it is NOT their fault if people are not securely backing up, their personal and private data.
Apple's only fault (IMHO) is not encrypting the location logfile on the phone, or the system with regards to backups. Regardless, security of data is the end user's responsibility, not the manufacturer of their computer or software.
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.
mwswami
Jul 21, 04:48 PM
Interesting. You know links where we can learn more about Bensley?
TechReport: The Bensley server platform debuts (http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=1)
TechReport: The Bensley server platform debuts (http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=1)
iPaf
Apr 27, 10:02 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; fr-fr) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Your location is nothing compared to what Facebook collects about you :P
Your location is nothing compared to what Facebook collects about you :P
pyramid6
Apr 6, 03:44 PM
I think it's great that some people like the Xoom, but for me it's a nonstarter.
As a developer, 100,000 units is not even worth considering developing for. I know I'm not the only one. I really don't like the walled garden of the Apple App store, but it is where the tablets are at the moment.
As a developer, 100,000 units is not even worth considering developing for. I know I'm not the only one. I really don't like the walled garden of the Apple App store, but it is where the tablets are at the moment.
Stridder44
Apr 10, 12:28 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
This should be interesting.
This should be interesting.
Hellhammer
Apr 6, 11:11 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.
Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.
I find this completely backwards from Apple's current position on both CPU and graphics, and I don't think anyone would end up with a faster or better 13" MBA than the current generation. Apple would certainly have to bring back the backlit keyboard and introduce Thunderbolt to sucker anyone into buying such inferior junk! I would recommend people buy the current generation on clearance rather than lose performance everywhere like this. If this is the chip Apple uses in the 13" MBA, prepare for a big drop in capabilities!
I am still in shock anyone finds this a positive? Have you all read the clock speed? The facts about the chip and IGP in ultra low voltage variants?
I'm pretty sure you are aware that Apple would use LV CPU in 13", not ULV. That bumps us to 2.3GHz plus Turbo. You have said this yourself too and I already covered the reason in my other post.
This is just a MR article and surprisingly, they don't have much idea about the TDPs. Hopefully they will correct their article so people won't live in confusion.
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.
I find this completely backwards from Apple's current position on both CPU and graphics, and I don't think anyone would end up with a faster or better 13" MBA than the current generation. Apple would certainly have to bring back the backlit keyboard and introduce Thunderbolt to sucker anyone into buying such inferior junk! I would recommend people buy the current generation on clearance rather than lose performance everywhere like this. If this is the chip Apple uses in the 13" MBA, prepare for a big drop in capabilities!
I am still in shock anyone finds this a positive? Have you all read the clock speed? The facts about the chip and IGP in ultra low voltage variants?
I'm pretty sure you are aware that Apple would use LV CPU in 13", not ULV. That bumps us to 2.3GHz plus Turbo. You have said this yourself too and I already covered the reason in my other post.
This is just a MR article and surprisingly, they don't have much idea about the TDPs. Hopefully they will correct their article so people won't live in confusion.
e-coli
Aug 11, 04:37 PM
How dare you. Since when does apple release a product that is not up to par or even above. Of course they will do it good, it is apple. It is going to be amazing i can just feel it!
Uhh...Motion version 1 was complete crap...totally unusable. Aperture...slow as Christmas, and has serious image degradation problems.
Don't buy into all the hype.
Apple's stock keeps sinking, and they're being investigated by the SEC (or on the brink), so this could be a rumor that's being intentionally leaked to satisfy Wall Street.
Uhh...Motion version 1 was complete crap...totally unusable. Aperture...slow as Christmas, and has serious image degradation problems.
Don't buy into all the hype.
Apple's stock keeps sinking, and they're being investigated by the SEC (or on the brink), so this could be a rumor that's being intentionally leaked to satisfy Wall Street.
Tommyg117
Aug 11, 10:44 AM
My phone plan runs out next month, hopefully it comes out soon.
rdowns
Apr 27, 09:22 AM
Before yesterday?
Are you serious?
Are you serious?
janstett
Sep 15, 07:57 AM
I remember reading a BBC news article the other month about mRAM (or magnetic RAM) which has the same write speeds as RAM, but without its volatility. It doesn't loose it's data when the power is off. Ideal for fast HDDs they say.
Yeah, I think they're calling them "Hybrid drives" where they will have some fast static RAM built into a hard drive and store the most frequently accessed part of the drive in cache on the static RAM.
On an unrelated note, wouldnt it been cool to effectivly install a whole OS on RAM. That would be noticably quicker....
You used to be able to do that with ramdisks, but getting the files onto the ramdisk took more time than just booting from the disk. Sometimes you can force the OS to keep itself in RAM when it's loaded from disk (so the OS won't start swapping itself out when it needs memory), there's a setting for this in Tweak XP.
Yeah, I think they're calling them "Hybrid drives" where they will have some fast static RAM built into a hard drive and store the most frequently accessed part of the drive in cache on the static RAM.
On an unrelated note, wouldnt it been cool to effectivly install a whole OS on RAM. That would be noticably quicker....
You used to be able to do that with ramdisks, but getting the files onto the ramdisk took more time than just booting from the disk. Sometimes you can force the OS to keep itself in RAM when it's loaded from disk (so the OS won't start swapping itself out when it needs memory), there's a setting for this in Tweak XP.
Cameront9
Aug 7, 05:46 PM
WHat is he deal with no new displays, but they did drop the prices a little. I think the iPod is long overdue at this point for a makeover. I guess I'm just a victim of my own unfulfilled expectations.
The displays WERE updated slightly...check the main page.
As for iPods...why "makeover" what is working? And this was the DEVELOPERS conference. iPods, if they happen before Christmas, will be either at Paris or a special media event (the latter more likely, IMHO).
The displays WERE updated slightly...check the main page.
As for iPods...why "makeover" what is working? And this was the DEVELOPERS conference. iPods, if they happen before Christmas, will be either at Paris or a special media event (the latter more likely, IMHO).
epitaphic
Aug 19, 05:53 PM
And I'm not convinced this is only an application problem. When I run Handbrake on the Quad G5 alone it uses just over two cores 203%
So what happened to:
Both Toast and Handbrake can use 4 cores EACH
Looking at the handbrake forums, speeds seem to vary drastically between users with the same machine. Definitely seems to be affected by whatever else you have running or configured in the OS or otherwise. I suppose the "cleanest" install to test is in the Apple store (I'm just assuming they do a clean ghost copy at shutdown or end of day?)
When I ran tests on the Mac Pro at the Apple Store last Saturday between Toast and/or Handbrake, their use of more cores alone and together was much better.
So your benchmarks show the Mac Pro using 15-33% less CPU than the G5? There's no doubt that Woodcrest is a superior chip architecture to the G5 (one would hope after 3 years) and so that's why you're seeing more FPS inspite of less CPU use. But why does it use less cores though? Seems like either its a software problem OR some hardware is being maxed (I/O or FSB perhaps?)
So would it be correct to say that the only app that is even remotely "Quadcore aware" is Toast? It seems like by the time professional apps are made to take advantage of 4 cores we'll probably be on more than 8! :eek:
If only they could build something in the CPU itself that delegates tasks to n cores, we'd all be sorted. :)
So what happened to:
Both Toast and Handbrake can use 4 cores EACH
Looking at the handbrake forums, speeds seem to vary drastically between users with the same machine. Definitely seems to be affected by whatever else you have running or configured in the OS or otherwise. I suppose the "cleanest" install to test is in the Apple store (I'm just assuming they do a clean ghost copy at shutdown or end of day?)
When I ran tests on the Mac Pro at the Apple Store last Saturday between Toast and/or Handbrake, their use of more cores alone and together was much better.
So your benchmarks show the Mac Pro using 15-33% less CPU than the G5? There's no doubt that Woodcrest is a superior chip architecture to the G5 (one would hope after 3 years) and so that's why you're seeing more FPS inspite of less CPU use. But why does it use less cores though? Seems like either its a software problem OR some hardware is being maxed (I/O or FSB perhaps?)
So would it be correct to say that the only app that is even remotely "Quadcore aware" is Toast? It seems like by the time professional apps are made to take advantage of 4 cores we'll probably be on more than 8! :eek:
If only they could build something in the CPU itself that delegates tasks to n cores, we'd all be sorted. :)
ImAlwaysRight
Sep 13, 09:01 AM
Great news. I can't afford nor do I need that much power, but great to see it can be done.
Tones2
Apr 11, 02:20 PM
The only downside is, Apple may be so darn busy in the fall with new products, that you won't even be able to get in their stores!
That's why god created the internet.......:D
That's why god created the internet.......:D
kdarling
Apr 19, 08:24 PM
@kdarling: look up.. up... 4 posts up.. There you go.
lol... thanks! Dunno how I missed that.
--
Silly thought for the evening: Apple should be glad that Samsung is copying their old 3GS instead of the new iPhone 4.
After all, only one company at a time should be paying style homage to old Leicas, right?
lol... thanks! Dunno how I missed that.
--
Silly thought for the evening: Apple should be glad that Samsung is copying their old 3GS instead of the new iPhone 4.
After all, only one company at a time should be paying style homage to old Leicas, right?
Object-X
Aug 26, 05:44 PM
Anyone know of benchmarks comparing the core duo with the core 2 duo?
orkle
Nov 29, 08:45 AM
Just goes to show you how corrupt the music business really is!:mad:
And how little the average user actually knows about it.
And how little the average user actually knows about it.
PurrBall
Mar 26, 09:12 AM
Not quite, W7 is still based on Win NT technology, dating back to 1993.
OS X is still based on UNIX, dating back to '69.
OS X is still based on UNIX, dating back to '69.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 29, 10:41 AM
Here we go again. Broad generalizations. Go to the responses to blogs and articles on the internet and you'll see this isn't true.
Maybe I am mistaken. RT, would you please quote some right-wingers who did name-calling? Seems to me that many accuse others of, say, racism, mysogeny, or homophobia when the accusers want to silence the accused. I don't want to offend anyone, but I won't let anyone intimidate me. Name-calling reflects mostly on the name-callers, and in the end, what others think of me will matter very little, if at all. There's even something good about the opposition I get: It thickens my skin.
Maybe I am mistaken. RT, would you please quote some right-wingers who did name-calling? Seems to me that many accuse others of, say, racism, mysogeny, or homophobia when the accusers want to silence the accused. I don't want to offend anyone, but I won't let anyone intimidate me. Name-calling reflects mostly on the name-callers, and in the end, what others think of me will matter very little, if at all. There's even something good about the opposition I get: It thickens my skin.
ssamani
Sep 13, 07:15 PM
DAMN :eek:
so 2-3 years from now are people going to be asking "do I need a quad core or an 8 core macbook? oh yeah I'll mostly be surfing the web and maybe editing a photo once and a while" :rolleyes:
I'll be mostly surfing the web to simultaneously stream multiple TV channels, download HD movies and video chat with friends with a live video substitution background and maybe editing a 16 Megapixel camera phone photo and the odd HD camcorder movie once in a while.
Hey, as Steve said, 128K is more than anyone will ever need...
so 2-3 years from now are people going to be asking "do I need a quad core or an 8 core macbook? oh yeah I'll mostly be surfing the web and maybe editing a photo once and a while" :rolleyes:
I'll be mostly surfing the web to simultaneously stream multiple TV channels, download HD movies and video chat with friends with a live video substitution background and maybe editing a 16 Megapixel camera phone photo and the odd HD camcorder movie once in a while.
Hey, as Steve said, 128K is more than anyone will ever need...
THX1139
Aug 21, 02:09 AM
I stopped by the Apple store tonight to play with a Macpro. I'm getting ready to buy and thought I'd get some hands on experience to see how it performed with Finalcut Pro. I was especially interested in how it handles playback of uncompressed footage.
The store had a 2.6 hooked up to a 30"ACD. Everything on the machine was stock. I launched FCP and it appeared with a project already loaded (about 5 seconds). The project was a simple 20-30 second 720x480 NTSC clip of hockey game footage. I selected the clip and copied it to a new layer and threw a blend mode on it AND changed the speed to 85%. Next I copied and made another layer and changed the speed and offset it and changed the transparency to 80%. 3 layers total with the top two manipulated. I hit the render and it finished in about 30 seconds. :)
I know, not very scientific, but I just wanted to get a feel for how fast the Macpro would render manipulated footage. Anyhow, next I changed the output in project settings to "uncompressed" and hit render again. Again, it took less than a minute to render and the CPU usage in console was maxing out at only 42% per core.
Once the render completed, I hit the play button to see how the stock Macpro would handle playback of the uncompressed footage. It played for about 4 seconds then threw an error saying that frames were being dropped during playback. Not good. I was hoping that the Macpro would be able to play uncompressed footage from the timeline without 3rd party acceleration or setting up a raid. The error message suggested turning off RT effects (of which I did, but still had dropped frames) or get a faster drive. There was a couple other things the error suggested, but I can't remember at the moment. I wonder if having the ATI card would have made a difference? Not sure if FCP uses the GPU for playback, but I would think that should make a difference. Ram would probably help too. Anyone know what might be going on? Am I expecting too much out of this machine?
Sorry for sort of getting off topic. I thought this might be an appropriate area to post this; I wasn't feeling up to starting a new thread.
The store had a 2.6 hooked up to a 30"ACD. Everything on the machine was stock. I launched FCP and it appeared with a project already loaded (about 5 seconds). The project was a simple 20-30 second 720x480 NTSC clip of hockey game footage. I selected the clip and copied it to a new layer and threw a blend mode on it AND changed the speed to 85%. Next I copied and made another layer and changed the speed and offset it and changed the transparency to 80%. 3 layers total with the top two manipulated. I hit the render and it finished in about 30 seconds. :)
I know, not very scientific, but I just wanted to get a feel for how fast the Macpro would render manipulated footage. Anyhow, next I changed the output in project settings to "uncompressed" and hit render again. Again, it took less than a minute to render and the CPU usage in console was maxing out at only 42% per core.
Once the render completed, I hit the play button to see how the stock Macpro would handle playback of the uncompressed footage. It played for about 4 seconds then threw an error saying that frames were being dropped during playback. Not good. I was hoping that the Macpro would be able to play uncompressed footage from the timeline without 3rd party acceleration or setting up a raid. The error message suggested turning off RT effects (of which I did, but still had dropped frames) or get a faster drive. There was a couple other things the error suggested, but I can't remember at the moment. I wonder if having the ATI card would have made a difference? Not sure if FCP uses the GPU for playback, but I would think that should make a difference. Ram would probably help too. Anyone know what might be going on? Am I expecting too much out of this machine?
Sorry for sort of getting off topic. I thought this might be an appropriate area to post this; I wasn't feeling up to starting a new thread.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 12:26 PM
CDMA is the only practical option for those of us who travel.
Travel within US perhaps. Still, you might be correct, even though I have seen posts that claims the opposite. Vz reluctance to give GSM a chance is big roadblock for you guys to get decent roaming. I use my european triband (900,1800,1900) when I fly over. I spend about 2 months per year in US. So far I havent had any problems getting connection. OK, you have some dropped calls when you drive in less populated areas. But that is reallly nothing to get upset about. Better to just redial the number than popping a vein in vain. :p
Still, life would be so much simpler for you if you at least tried to agree on one standard within your own country. Free enterprise has few, but really really annoying drawbacks.
Travel within US perhaps. Still, you might be correct, even though I have seen posts that claims the opposite. Vz reluctance to give GSM a chance is big roadblock for you guys to get decent roaming. I use my european triband (900,1800,1900) when I fly over. I spend about 2 months per year in US. So far I havent had any problems getting connection. OK, you have some dropped calls when you drive in less populated areas. But that is reallly nothing to get upset about. Better to just redial the number than popping a vein in vain. :p
Still, life would be so much simpler for you if you at least tried to agree on one standard within your own country. Free enterprise has few, but really really annoying drawbacks.
hulugu
Apr 28, 07:22 PM
...Your problem, Hulugu, just like other liberals in this forum blinded by their own bias, is that you decided what I was trying to do before I even did it. I clearly stated my point, I clearly stated I was not a birther, I clearly stated that I had advocated the documents release, I clearly stated I hoped it would shut the issue down for several reasons including the fact that it's a political loser for my side of the aisle... and yet what do you and the others do? Claim that I AM a birther, claim that I'm GLAD there was something odd about the document, claim that my attempt to get someone to clear up the confusion and give the 'simple explanation' was actually a veiled attempt to prove Obama was a Kenyan.
Sad, pathetic, misguided, and further proof that this forum has a distinct in ability to produce meaningful conversation without hate, vitriol, and meaninglessly misguided attacks. Enjoy.
Your inability to parse my point might actually be the problem. I thought your "I'm just asking questions" line was disingenuous, not because you're a birther, but rather you have a vested interest in conspiracy with this administration.
You don't care what the conspiracy is, you just want another arrow.
And that is bias.
Sad, pathetic, misguided, and further proof that this forum has a distinct in ability to produce meaningful conversation without hate, vitriol, and meaninglessly misguided attacks. Enjoy.
Your inability to parse my point might actually be the problem. I thought your "I'm just asking questions" line was disingenuous, not because you're a birther, but rather you have a vested interest in conspiracy with this administration.
You don't care what the conspiracy is, you just want another arrow.
And that is bias.
