AppliedVisual
Oct 24, 01:16 AM
Could anyone tell me what is "Santa Rosa " ?
Uh, sure... Click Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrino#Santa_Rosa_platform).
Uh, sure... Click Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrino#Santa_Rosa_platform).
motulist
Aug 7, 01:07 AM
10am PST is 1am here.
Where the heck are you? Australia?
Where the heck are you? Australia?
cinder1280
Nov 23, 10:05 AM
Hi,
I have to order a new workstation in the beginning of dec.
I want the Powermac in a top config with the 30" Display.
Now I wonder to wait the release of the 8core system for two reasons:
If the price will be equal to the actuall one of the quad 3Ghz: Fine, I ll buy the mac pro with clovertown
If the clovertown system will be much more expensive than the actuall 3 ghz, maybe the 3 ghz will get a little bit cheaper. So i will buy the 3 Ghz system.
Should I wait to Jan or Feb ? ( The release in November just a rumor :( )
I dont know what to do. It will be my workstation for the next 4 or 5 ähm thousand years ;)
Sorry for my bad English, I m working on it ;)
Greets CindeR
I have to order a new workstation in the beginning of dec.
I want the Powermac in a top config with the 30" Display.
Now I wonder to wait the release of the 8core system for two reasons:
If the price will be equal to the actuall one of the quad 3Ghz: Fine, I ll buy the mac pro with clovertown
If the clovertown system will be much more expensive than the actuall 3 ghz, maybe the 3 ghz will get a little bit cheaper. So i will buy the 3 Ghz system.
Should I wait to Jan or Feb ? ( The release in November just a rumor :( )
I dont know what to do. It will be my workstation for the next 4 or 5 ähm thousand years ;)
Sorry for my bad English, I m working on it ;)
Greets CindeR
wovel
Apr 3, 12:18 AM
Which part, the stock information, typing an email, or working on a spreadsheet? ;)
It was the brain scans..
Great ad. When they can't compete on specs Apple should try to use fuzzy math (sorry, logic) to convince people that there is more to their products. That's the only way for Apple to keep the profit margin.
Like when your competitors can't compete on usability and applications, they talk about meaningless "features" no one actually cares about.
It was the brain scans..
Great ad. When they can't compete on specs Apple should try to use fuzzy math (sorry, logic) to convince people that there is more to their products. That's the only way for Apple to keep the profit margin.
Like when your competitors can't compete on usability and applications, they talk about meaningless "features" no one actually cares about.
RollTide
Apr 12, 08:30 PM
I wish they'd show it on a nice new shiny iMac.
ellsworth
Apr 26, 12:50 PM
Ridiculous.
MattG
Aug 16, 11:20 AM
I think they'll use 802.11 for wireless. That way, I can stream my music from iPod to Airport Express directly. Although Firewire/USB will still be the primary I/O.
That's what I'm talking about...I'd love that capability.
That's what I'm talking about...I'd love that capability.
Earendil
Nov 28, 11:02 AM
OK, this is out of hand... all of you who are complaining about Dell being half the price of the Apple LCDs read the topic that's been linked like 5 times, it's pretty interesting and informative.
Now, all of you who are complaining about those people complain shut up and listen (or read) for a minute. They aren't complaining that Apple is charging to much for what they are offering, it's that they aren't offering any alternative for non-pro users. There are people who want, and would pay a bit more than Dell prices, for a similar piece of hardware with Apple's quality and design, but they aren't willing to pay 50%+ more for a professional grade piece of hardware.
A small few are saying that. I believe the rest finally got the point or actually went to the linked article. As the most vocal poster in the last 24 hours though, I'd like to point out I've concede the point above numerous times, and fully agree with t. I myself am a victim of Apple not offering a consumer level machine :(
A 17" consumer line of displays would solve the problem without negatively effecting the pro line of hardware. If it sold well (and I'm betting it would, especially if it was the same panel as the 17" iMac with a USB2 hub, iSight, and built in speakers in an iPod styled casing for ~$249) a 19" with the same features but a higher res (although all the 19" widescreens I've seen have had the same res as 17" WS ... someone must make a 19" panel with res between 1440x900 and 1680x1050) for ~$349 or so it'd really fill out Apple product line to meet the needs of all consumers, "prosumers", and real pros.
Man, if they did that I might pick up a MacMini next summer as well!
Here's to dreaming :)
Now, all of you who are complaining about those people complain shut up and listen (or read) for a minute. They aren't complaining that Apple is charging to much for what they are offering, it's that they aren't offering any alternative for non-pro users. There are people who want, and would pay a bit more than Dell prices, for a similar piece of hardware with Apple's quality and design, but they aren't willing to pay 50%+ more for a professional grade piece of hardware.
A small few are saying that. I believe the rest finally got the point or actually went to the linked article. As the most vocal poster in the last 24 hours though, I'd like to point out I've concede the point above numerous times, and fully agree with t. I myself am a victim of Apple not offering a consumer level machine :(
A 17" consumer line of displays would solve the problem without negatively effecting the pro line of hardware. If it sold well (and I'm betting it would, especially if it was the same panel as the 17" iMac with a USB2 hub, iSight, and built in speakers in an iPod styled casing for ~$249) a 19" with the same features but a higher res (although all the 19" widescreens I've seen have had the same res as 17" WS ... someone must make a 19" panel with res between 1440x900 and 1680x1050) for ~$349 or so it'd really fill out Apple product line to meet the needs of all consumers, "prosumers", and real pros.
Man, if they did that I might pick up a MacMini next summer as well!
Here's to dreaming :)
aurichie
Apr 2, 07:13 PM
My backlight bleeds
qualleyiv
Nov 15, 10:30 AM
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
OK, I'm hardly a programmer (PHP doesn't really count) but that's the exact same description that I've heard applied to the description of what it takes to vectorize a program (i.e. make it Alti-Vec optimized) [that and the process of making loops that can be unrolled]. So I've got to ask, is there some difference between those two concepts? If not, it sure seems like we would have a lot more multi-core enabled apps out there already...
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
OK, I'm hardly a programmer (PHP doesn't really count) but that's the exact same description that I've heard applied to the description of what it takes to vectorize a program (i.e. make it Alti-Vec optimized) [that and the process of making loops that can be unrolled]. So I've got to ask, is there some difference between those two concepts? If not, it sure seems like we would have a lot more multi-core enabled apps out there already...
paradox00
May 3, 01:29 PM
I'm glad Apple is thinking for themselves and leaving the purists behind as they adopt newer, better ways of doing things. The idea of installing from a disc image is ridiculous. Anyone I've explained it to can understand it, but always mention there must be a better way. "Install" is much better than launching a disc image, opening an applications window, and then dragging the icon over to the other window. Also, dragging a file to the trash doesn't delete all the pieces it came with. An uninstall was needed. I have been using AppZapper, but this will now be built into the OS.
There is a better way. Good programs include a shortcut to the applications folder in the disk image. Some even have arrows directing you to drag the application to the shortcut within the same window. How on earth is an installer better than that?
Apple's uninstall process also works really well. If you want to delete the program but retain the settings, drag the program to the trash, if you want to delete the settings, drag the settings folder from the library to the trash as well or use a third party app like app zapper (as you mentioned). How is the Windows uninstall process better than the one step process of dragging into the trash or dragging into app zapper?
People coming from Windows often criticize macs because they get the job done too efficiently, and they find it hard to believe that things can work so smoothly yet still be effective. They come with the expectation of expecting complexity, and when it isn't there, they find the lack of complexity to be a fault. It's a ridiculous phenomenon, but it's quite real. I should know, I also switched.
There is a better way. Good programs include a shortcut to the applications folder in the disk image. Some even have arrows directing you to drag the application to the shortcut within the same window. How on earth is an installer better than that?
Apple's uninstall process also works really well. If you want to delete the program but retain the settings, drag the program to the trash, if you want to delete the settings, drag the settings folder from the library to the trash as well or use a third party app like app zapper (as you mentioned). How is the Windows uninstall process better than the one step process of dragging into the trash or dragging into app zapper?
People coming from Windows often criticize macs because they get the job done too efficiently, and they find it hard to believe that things can work so smoothly yet still be effective. They come with the expectation of expecting complexity, and when it isn't there, they find the lack of complexity to be a fault. It's a ridiculous phenomenon, but it's quite real. I should know, I also switched.
iPhonesIntoCash
Sep 14, 05:07 PM
Apple claims that this issue only affects a small number of users and I can say that I haven't noticed much of my clientele complaining about it. I own a company, iPhonesIntoCash.com (http://www.iPhonesIntoCash.com) and we purchase used or broken iPhones. So I've heard various complaints about the iPhone and why people may be getting rid of theirs, but this issue has not been a major problem from the people I've spoken with. Also, I have an iPhone 4 and haven't experienced the problem myself. Consumer Reports is a good backing to have from a marketing perspective though so hopefully Apple can reach an agreement with them to get some type of endorsement.
Satori
Apr 21, 11:35 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Storm in a tea cup!
Storm in a tea cup!
Evangelion
Aug 25, 04:58 AM
I hope they add a second Ethernet and Firewire to it.
Both are pro-features, so it will be VERY unlikely that we will see them in the Mini.
Both are pro-features, so it will be VERY unlikely that we will see them in the Mini.
liketom
Jul 19, 04:49 PM
when asked are we expecting any surprises from WWDC regarding the music store - they just laughed :eek:
so i'd take that as movies are coming at WWDC
so i'd take that as movies are coming at WWDC
Tmelon
Apr 2, 02:12 PM
You feel like it�s a new experience? So much better?
Well it's still Mac OS X so I can't call it a completely new experience. There's still a menu bar, still a dock, etc. But they've definitely made some improvements. And there's most likely still more to come in terms of speed and stability.
Well it's still Mac OS X so I can't call it a completely new experience. There's still a menu bar, still a dock, etc. But they've definitely made some improvements. And there's most likely still more to come in terms of speed and stability.
cmegens
Sep 7, 06:58 AM
Has anybody noticed that the memory upgrade has become cheaper? And has anybody noticed that apple left out the SO-Dimm information? Do you guys think they just left it out on the website, and will there be the SO-dimms in there as we are used too, or could they have changed to normal memory?
Macnoviz
Jul 18, 01:53 PM
If people still drive to the video store to rent movies, then why are Blockbuster et al. going out of business? Everyone I know uses Netflix, not stores, nowadays, unless they don't have a computer, in which case iTunes is not their target market anyway.
Then you can't know that many people, I think you're forgetting there are still people outside of the US, and over here there still is a huge unexplored market for movie rentals. There are no companies that provide services like Netflix, and stores rule the market. If Apple uses the iTunes name for Movie Rentals, it will be a succes in Europe, either way.
Then you can't know that many people, I think you're forgetting there are still people outside of the US, and over here there still is a huge unexplored market for movie rentals. There are no companies that provide services like Netflix, and stores rule the market. If Apple uses the iTunes name for Movie Rentals, it will be a succes in Europe, either way.
fobfob
Nov 21, 12:01 AM
Folks, I'm trying to run FAH on my i7 iMac. I put in "-bigadv -smp 8 -local " into the 'extra parameters' tab of the Settings app. I've got 8 processes going and it all looks good.
Apart from entering "3446" as the team number, do I need a passkey?
Apart from entering "3446" as the team number, do I need a passkey?
diamond.g
Mar 24, 01:54 PM
It would be very well possible. Remember, Thunderbolt is derived from LightPeak. One of the reasons to develop LightPeak was to transmit data at very fast rates over a distance. Essentially, not have everything so closed together.
In other words, you can the CPU in room A and the RAM in room B which is 20 feet away and get the same result. This is one of the reasons Intel developed LightPeak. There are many other reasons for development obviously.
However, Thunderbolt in its current stage is not suited for such lengthy exchange due to its copper nature. However, say you have a GFX cradle on your desk, you could well use Thunderbolt's current implementation to feed data. However, you'd need multiple implementations of Thunderbolt in order for it to work great. Currently, many GFX solutions use PCIe x16 interface which pretty much uses 8 GB/s bandwidth so one Thunderbolt interface will do fine and still have a nice 2GB/s overhead. However, the newer PCIe 3.0 interface pushes 16GB/s now so you'd need two Thunderbolt interfaces.
The one thing I wonder about is DRM. As it is now the connection to the display (and through DP) are protected (with either HDCP or DPCP). Do we know if LP/TB supports that protection (especially since the DP stream is actually separate from the PCIe stream)?
In other words, you can the CPU in room A and the RAM in room B which is 20 feet away and get the same result. This is one of the reasons Intel developed LightPeak. There are many other reasons for development obviously.
However, Thunderbolt in its current stage is not suited for such lengthy exchange due to its copper nature. However, say you have a GFX cradle on your desk, you could well use Thunderbolt's current implementation to feed data. However, you'd need multiple implementations of Thunderbolt in order for it to work great. Currently, many GFX solutions use PCIe x16 interface which pretty much uses 8 GB/s bandwidth so one Thunderbolt interface will do fine and still have a nice 2GB/s overhead. However, the newer PCIe 3.0 interface pushes 16GB/s now so you'd need two Thunderbolt interfaces.
The one thing I wonder about is DRM. As it is now the connection to the display (and through DP) are protected (with either HDCP or DPCP). Do we know if LP/TB supports that protection (especially since the DP stream is actually separate from the PCIe stream)?
0815
May 2, 05:04 PM
Apple sees the benefit of unifying how things work across OS X and iOS.
There are tons of people that don't know how to install or uninstall apps on their PC, but they do on their iPhone or iPad. By unifying, those people feel comfortable buying a Mac.
But than it should be unified ... not three different ways depending how you got/installed the app. Right now it looks there are three ways of doing it in Lion:
- click & hold
- just trash
- run uninstaller
Unfortunately it is only ONE of those ways depending how you got it.
There are tons of people that don't know how to install or uninstall apps on their PC, but they do on their iPhone or iPad. By unifying, those people feel comfortable buying a Mac.
But than it should be unified ... not three different ways depending how you got/installed the app. Right now it looks there are three ways of doing it in Lion:
- click & hold
- just trash
- run uninstaller
Unfortunately it is only ONE of those ways depending how you got it.
tMac85
Jan 11, 11:06 PM
Maybe Apple's poster actually says more but we can't see the bottom?
Something like: "There's something in the air... blow it out your ass Microsoft" :p
hahahahahahha
Something like: "There's something in the air... blow it out your ass Microsoft" :p
hahahahahahha
nsayer
Nov 15, 12:13 PM
Seems to me this might be a way not for Apple to release an 8 core machine, but perhaps to release a one-chip, 4 core Mac Pro. That might result in slightly lower manufacturing and/or parts costs.
tokevino
Aug 7, 12:24 AM
I am buying an iMac very soon, and I just want a 64-bit intel core in it. Cmon merom!
IMHO, only Mac Pro and MacBook Pro will get the chance for Core 2s. Intel simply doesn't have the production, yet.
Do you have a particular need for 64 bit computing?
IMHO, only Mac Pro and MacBook Pro will get the chance for Core 2s. Intel simply doesn't have the production, yet.
Do you have a particular need for 64 bit computing?
