ergle2
Sep 14, 01:17 PM
True (today anyway; in the NT era they were indeed separate platforms though. Which brings me to my next point..)
Point of total (and obnoxious) pedantry here -- XP and W2K3 Server aren't strictly the same codebase; The latter was a huge rewrite job with some fairly significant internal changes.
XP 64bit is based on W2K3, and Vista originally started out on the XP code base and then was scrapped, and was started over using the W2K3 codebase.
It doesn't invalidate your point in any way and the latter is most definitely descended from the former, but unlike previous products they weren't released in parallel. I mention it purely because I find it interesting, and it's also an example of how Windows is "evolving", so to speak.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
This is very common on both sides of the divide. Many Mac-only people seem to think Windows is still stuck in the Win9x days, and many of the Windows-only types seem to think MacOS is still in the 8.x days.
I guess it's a little like when your friend has kids and you don't see them for a few years, and you're surprised that instead of still being little kids they're teenagers... :)
Point of total (and obnoxious) pedantry here -- XP and W2K3 Server aren't strictly the same codebase; The latter was a huge rewrite job with some fairly significant internal changes.
XP 64bit is based on W2K3, and Vista originally started out on the XP code base and then was scrapped, and was started over using the W2K3 codebase.
It doesn't invalidate your point in any way and the latter is most definitely descended from the former, but unlike previous products they weren't released in parallel. I mention it purely because I find it interesting, and it's also an example of how Windows is "evolving", so to speak.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
This is very common on both sides of the divide. Many Mac-only people seem to think Windows is still stuck in the Win9x days, and many of the Windows-only types seem to think MacOS is still in the 8.x days.
I guess it's a little like when your friend has kids and you don't see them for a few years, and you're surprised that instead of still being little kids they're teenagers... :)
bamerican
Apr 25, 03:23 PM
Where did this attorney go to law school...
If you want a free consultation, check him out here (http://www.mayerlawgroup.com/).
And one of the counts in the complaint doesn't even allege a civil claim.
He's in way over his head. Apple's lawyers are going to eat him alive.
This is going to be fun to watch.
If you want a free consultation, check him out here (http://www.mayerlawgroup.com/).
And one of the counts in the complaint doesn't even allege a civil claim.
He's in way over his head. Apple's lawyers are going to eat him alive.
This is going to be fun to watch.
gorgeousninja
Mar 23, 09:32 AM
LG and others had semi-smartphones with 3.5" screens back in 2006 and early 2007
If you ever used one of the LG phones or the numerous Japanese keitai's of that time then you'd know, that even though they were cutting edge for the time, they were still nowhere near being 'smartphones'.
Terrible UI with endless menu's, confusing icons, and new features randomly bolted on.
No matter how much the petty minded haters want to see it, the truth is that Apple made a quantum leap forward with the iPhone, and some people ought to be a little less bitter and more thankful for it.
If you ever used one of the LG phones or the numerous Japanese keitai's of that time then you'd know, that even though they were cutting edge for the time, they were still nowhere near being 'smartphones'.
Terrible UI with endless menu's, confusing icons, and new features randomly bolted on.
No matter how much the petty minded haters want to see it, the truth is that Apple made a quantum leap forward with the iPhone, and some people ought to be a little less bitter and more thankful for it.
MatthewThomas
Apr 5, 07:16 PM
I've posted several predictions over the past few months throughout this tread at Cinema5D:
http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=25464
http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=25464
NikeTalk
Apr 11, 12:36 PM
Enough with all the damn secrets. What other company keeps you in the dark about their products?! I've noticed a lot of people get tired of the same old waiting game with the iPhone and go ahead and get something else. Sometimes they like it and stick to the brand instead of Apple. This secrecy strategy was good at first but now it's starting to work against Apple.
QCassidy352
Apr 6, 11:58 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)
So is that also true for the difference between SV and LV? If that is the case, the Core i7-2649M you cite above (2.3 LV chip) should be faster compared to the 2.3 i5 in the low end Pro 13?
Thanks!
It would be about as fast. The IGP is 150MHz slower though so graphics wise it would be slightly slower. chrmjenkins explained some smaller details but in terms of performance, i7-2649M should be similar to i5-2520M.
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.
Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but it may not be as bad as 50% drop.
True. But here's the thing. Apple generally updates these about one a year. With such a slow upgrade cycle, you'd like to see significant improvement on each update. To stay the same would be pretty mediocre. To actually move backwards is just sad.
And yes, I realize options are limited here by the spat between intel and nvidea and by the size of the air (not enough room for a big dedicated card). So I don't know what the right answer is. All I know is I won't be tempted by an upgrade to CPU when it comes with a gpu downgrade.
So is that also true for the difference between SV and LV? If that is the case, the Core i7-2649M you cite above (2.3 LV chip) should be faster compared to the 2.3 i5 in the low end Pro 13?
Thanks!
It would be about as fast. The IGP is 150MHz slower though so graphics wise it would be slightly slower. chrmjenkins explained some smaller details but in terms of performance, i7-2649M should be similar to i5-2520M.
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.
Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but it may not be as bad as 50% drop.
True. But here's the thing. Apple generally updates these about one a year. With such a slow upgrade cycle, you'd like to see significant improvement on each update. To stay the same would be pretty mediocre. To actually move backwards is just sad.
And yes, I realize options are limited here by the spat between intel and nvidea and by the size of the air (not enough room for a big dedicated card). So I don't know what the right answer is. All I know is I won't be tempted by an upgrade to CPU when it comes with a gpu downgrade.
gorgeousninja
Apr 20, 09:40 AM
Don't let a few cherry picked pictures trick you, most Galaxy models don't look at all like an iPhone :
http://www.rogers.com/cms/images/en/Wireless/CellPhoneDetail/Banners/banner01_i896blkr.png
This one can go either way. Of course the Apple biased media are cherry picking their pictures. I'd doubt you'd have a hard time telling both devices apart in the real world with both in front of you.
Especially consdiring the Samsung doesn't use the icon grid on its homescreen at all, contrary to what the pictures are trying to show.
http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Screen-shot-2011-04-19-at-8.37.05-PM.png
feel free to point out how difficult it is to see any similarities...
http://www.rogers.com/cms/images/en/Wireless/CellPhoneDetail/Banners/banner01_i896blkr.png
This one can go either way. Of course the Apple biased media are cherry picking their pictures. I'd doubt you'd have a hard time telling both devices apart in the real world with both in front of you.
Especially consdiring the Samsung doesn't use the icon grid on its homescreen at all, contrary to what the pictures are trying to show.
http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Screen-shot-2011-04-19-at-8.37.05-PM.png
feel free to point out how difficult it is to see any similarities...
SevenInchScrew
Aug 19, 04:19 PM
Based on what, old gameplay footage?
Do you consider official images and video from E3 of this year, a mere 2 months ago, to be "old" footage? If so, then yes, I'm basing it on old gameplay footage. Look at the model and texture in this pic, and tell me that isn't straight out of GT4, just higher res....
{Click to huge-size}
http://i.imgur.com/KCOCw.jpg
http://us.gran-turismo.com/us/gallery/d5258.html
Look at this pic:
{pic}
That rx-7 looks tons better than anything GT4 ever had, but its still not as nice as the "premium" cars.
The pic you provided, with the RX7, Supra, etc, as with all the images shown recently from GC10, is of Premium� cars. Can you see in the windows? If so, then it is a Premium� car with a fully modeled interior. If not, they are a Standard� car, and have the dark tinted windows.
Time will tell, of course, but i'm certain they didnt just import models from GT4. What the hell would they have been doing for the past 5 years?
Oh, I don't know, maybe it was the....
the situation room white
in the Situation Room.
The Situation Room
The Elephant in the Situation
Team in the Situation Room
Situation room used by the
The new Situation Room.
in the Situation Room for
CNN Situation Room Osama
in the Situation Room of
The Situation Room: “We#39;ve
Do you consider official images and video from E3 of this year, a mere 2 months ago, to be "old" footage? If so, then yes, I'm basing it on old gameplay footage. Look at the model and texture in this pic, and tell me that isn't straight out of GT4, just higher res....
{Click to huge-size}
http://i.imgur.com/KCOCw.jpg
http://us.gran-turismo.com/us/gallery/d5258.html
Look at this pic:
{pic}
That rx-7 looks tons better than anything GT4 ever had, but its still not as nice as the "premium" cars.
The pic you provided, with the RX7, Supra, etc, as with all the images shown recently from GC10, is of Premium� cars. Can you see in the windows? If so, then it is a Premium� car with a fully modeled interior. If not, they are a Standard� car, and have the dark tinted windows.
Time will tell, of course, but i'm certain they didnt just import models from GT4. What the hell would they have been doing for the past 5 years?
Oh, I don't know, maybe it was the....
Dunepilot
Aug 21, 09:51 AM
- 3D Artists
- Coders
- Graphic Designers
- IT
- Multimedia Artists
- Musicians
- Photographers
- Video Editors
Who can fully utilize 4 cores right now? I'd say possibly 3D Artists, Musicians(quad G5 only), and IT.
There's been controversy on Apple's forums over the last few days about the fact that Apple has optimised Logic for quad-core Intel but has never properly utilised the quad G5. Owners of quad G5s have been up in arms about this, as it is being suggested this is a deliberate crippling to avoid admitting that the quad G5 is potentially faster for musicians (reverbs etc have historically been heavily optimised for velocity engine). Apple has removed the threads on the topic, which either points to a smokescreen, or to the fact that they may have software engineers working on rectifying it.
Whatever the case, this is not the way to please your professional customers.
- Coders
- Graphic Designers
- IT
- Multimedia Artists
- Musicians
- Photographers
- Video Editors
Who can fully utilize 4 cores right now? I'd say possibly 3D Artists, Musicians(quad G5 only), and IT.
There's been controversy on Apple's forums over the last few days about the fact that Apple has optimised Logic for quad-core Intel but has never properly utilised the quad G5. Owners of quad G5s have been up in arms about this, as it is being suggested this is a deliberate crippling to avoid admitting that the quad G5 is potentially faster for musicians (reverbs etc have historically been heavily optimised for velocity engine). Apple has removed the threads on the topic, which either points to a smokescreen, or to the fact that they may have software engineers working on rectifying it.
Whatever the case, this is not the way to please your professional customers.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 20, 02:43 PM
I thought Samsung went too far when they included little white stickers in the shape of apples inside the box.
Jpoon
Jun 8, 08:30 PM
I would rather just order it online if I didn't want to drive to an Apple Store.
Seriously, RadioShack needs to die.
Seriously, RadioShack needs to die.
pkson
Apr 19, 07:15 PM
What is the pic on the bottom? That ain't no Samsung tablet. Looks like a photoshop job.
All Samsung tabs have SAMSUNG blazed across the top of the face.
It's a Samsung Galaxy Tab.
Ridiculous nit-picking. http://kr.engadget.com/tag/samsung+galaxy+tab/ it's in Korean, but I'm sure you get the idea.
@kdarling: look up.. up... 4 posts up.. There you go.
All Samsung tabs have SAMSUNG blazed across the top of the face.
It's a Samsung Galaxy Tab.
Ridiculous nit-picking. http://kr.engadget.com/tag/samsung+galaxy+tab/ it's in Korean, but I'm sure you get the idea.
@kdarling: look up.. up... 4 posts up.. There you go.
mcrain
Mar 23, 01:48 PM
Again, Fivepoint, you forget that the President was selling the Iraq war with suspicious and weak information that the many questioned. It turns out they were right. Pre-war, the big issue was whether the war was justified based on the evidence being pushed by the President. The criticism President Bush faced thereafter had a lot to do with the fact that he lied to the American people in order to start a poorly planned war. They bungled every aspect of a war they lied to get us into. There were plenty of reasons to be critical.
Even so, in the FIRST DAYS of the war, even the lefties supported the troops and the American military, they merely questioned whether we should be going to war.
This Libya conflict is similar in that there are people on the left today questioning whether we should be "going to war" with this no-fly zone, but there are also people who support the reason behind it, but also question why we haven't gone into other countries where there are similar humanitarian issues.
Out of curiousity, what do you expect? I expect conservative congressmen and women to support a conservative president, but to think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. I don't respect blind support like what they did under GWB. Similarly, I expect liberal congressmen and women to support a liberal president, but to also think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. Some are speaking out, and some are not blindly supporting President Obama. Can you acknowledge that the liberals are doing a better job with consistency than the GOP? If not, how do you explain GOP opposition to the Libya action?
Even so, in the FIRST DAYS of the war, even the lefties supported the troops and the American military, they merely questioned whether we should be going to war.
This Libya conflict is similar in that there are people on the left today questioning whether we should be "going to war" with this no-fly zone, but there are also people who support the reason behind it, but also question why we haven't gone into other countries where there are similar humanitarian issues.
Out of curiousity, what do you expect? I expect conservative congressmen and women to support a conservative president, but to think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. I don't respect blind support like what they did under GWB. Similarly, I expect liberal congressmen and women to support a liberal president, but to also think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. Some are speaking out, and some are not blindly supporting President Obama. Can you acknowledge that the liberals are doing a better job with consistency than the GOP? If not, how do you explain GOP opposition to the Libya action?
Eidorian
Jul 20, 09:43 AM
There are serious electrical and physical problems with jacking up clock speeds much further than they are now. Intel managed to push their chips to 3.8GHz, but the power consumed was tremendous.Fixed
WillEH
Mar 25, 10:26 PM
Good stuff, waiting and ready to pay! :o
gibbz
Apr 27, 08:20 AM
Wow. That's surprising. This whole time people downplayed it because there was no evidence that apple was actually transmitting this data. It wasn't a big deal because the db file was local only. Now when Apple addresses it they had to not only admit that the file exists but that they actually were transmitting data.
Ah well, still not a big deal. :p
It is not surprising (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf) (pdf).
Ah well, still not a big deal. :p
It is not surprising (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf) (pdf).
MacinDoc
Mar 22, 02:25 PM
The screen is not 50% smaller. Nice way of making yourself look stupid.
What BaldiMac said. The 3" increase in screen size of the iPad more than doubles the screen's dimensions.
What BaldiMac said. The 3" increase in screen size of the iPad more than doubles the screen's dimensions.
ChrisA
Aug 16, 10:53 PM
My main interest is in FCP the FCP results.
On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?
I think movie editing depends a lot on the speed of the disk subsystem. After all Mini DV is 12GB per hour. That's a of data. When yo "scrub" a shot all that data has to move off the disk and onto the video card. Even with 16MB of RAM not much of the video data can be help in RAM. So the G5 and Intel machine have disks that are about the same speed. Speed of a disk is measured by how fast the bit fly under the read/write head not the interface speed. So I am not surprized the Intel Mac Pro is not hugly faster for video.
On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?
I think movie editing depends a lot on the speed of the disk subsystem. After all Mini DV is 12GB per hour. That's a of data. When yo "scrub" a shot all that data has to move off the disk and onto the video card. Even with 16MB of RAM not much of the video data can be help in RAM. So the G5 and Intel machine have disks that are about the same speed. Speed of a disk is measured by how fast the bit fly under the read/write head not the interface speed. So I am not surprized the Intel Mac Pro is not hugly faster for video.
Macnoviz
Jul 20, 12:14 PM
Sorry I don't see that happening... Apple has basically always given developers a few months (to several months) lead time with the next major version of Mac OS X. That has taken place yet... so I don't see it being released at WWDC 2006.
I thought we were talking MWSF here, in January, so that's on par with expectations
I thought we were talking MWSF here, in January, so that's on par with expectations
WildCowboy
Aug 17, 01:22 AM
It was just the performance was dam quick I just wasn't sure if there was an Intel version out or not, either way that is killer performance.
Absolutely...that's what's so impressive about the results for some of these non-universal apps. Just wait until the universal CS3 is available...the Mac Pro will destroy the Quad G5.
Absolutely...that's what's so impressive about the results for some of these non-universal apps. Just wait until the universal CS3 is available...the Mac Pro will destroy the Quad G5.
ro2nie
Aug 27, 08:43 PM
I think im gonna wait and buy in 2007 with leopard and iLife 07 :rolleyes:
Pro31
Apr 6, 02:10 PM
If you bought 2 Xooms would you have a Mazda?
ezekielrage_99
Aug 17, 12:59 AM
This is a very dumb question but is Photoshop running under rosetta in this test?
If Photoshop is that is nuts.
If Photoshop is that is nuts.
KPOM
Apr 6, 02:25 PM
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.
Uh, megahertz myth, anyone? Based on the 2.3Ghz Core i5 in the MacBook Pro, I'd expect the 1.4GHz Core i5 with hyperthreading to be significantly faster than the 1.86 or 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo. Plus, it can turbo boost to 2.3GHz.
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.
That is a legitimate concern. That said, if you aren't a gamer, the CPU may more than make up for it. Plus, we all know Apple can't use the Core 2 Duo forever, and is taking some heat for still using it now.
capabilities!
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
Uh, megahertz myth, anyone? Based on the 2.3Ghz Core i5 in the MacBook Pro, I'd expect the 1.4GHz Core i5 with hyperthreading to be significantly faster than the 1.86 or 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo. Plus, it can turbo boost to 2.3GHz.
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.
That is a legitimate concern. That said, if you aren't a gamer, the CPU may more than make up for it. Plus, we all know Apple can't use the Core 2 Duo forever, and is taking some heat for still using it now.
capabilities!
