jealousguy86
Apr 11, 08:54 PM
i still think the iphone 4G/5 will be out in june/july.
HOWEVER.... if apple doesn't announce the new iphone in june at WWDC, then i'm going to just buy an iphone 4 that week. i have an upgrade i'm due for at any time now, so i suppose i can wait til june.
it's times like these i wish apple weren't so secretive about its product plans/launches.
HOWEVER.... if apple doesn't announce the new iphone in june at WWDC, then i'm going to just buy an iphone 4 that week. i have an upgrade i'm due for at any time now, so i suppose i can wait til june.
it's times like these i wish apple weren't so secretive about its product plans/launches.
.jpg "short hair styles|short hair")
Cowinacape
Jul 14, 04:51 PM
....while I am at it, hopefully there will me room for more than just 2 hard drives inside the case........
Evangelion
Aug 18, 04:44 AM
I have to say, I actually expected the woodcrest results to be better. It really shows that the G5 was years ahead of the competition. :cool:
On some tasks, it was. Overall, it was merely competetive with what was available on the x86-world at the time (Opteron etc.). The difference was that G4 was getting massacred by x86, G5 restored parity.
Yes, G5 whooped ass on some benchmarks. And lost in some other benchmarks. But at least it wasn't getting it's ass whooped all the time and everywhere ;)
On some tasks, it was. Overall, it was merely competetive with what was available on the x86-world at the time (Opteron etc.). The difference was that G4 was getting massacred by x86, G5 restored parity.
Yes, G5 whooped ass on some benchmarks. And lost in some other benchmarks. But at least it wasn't getting it's ass whooped all the time and everywhere ;)
dethmaShine
Apr 19, 03:02 PM
That's US mobile subscribers marketshare for Jan and Feb '11. My numbers are worldwide smartphone marketshare. Completly different things.
Well if I can understand that:
1. US mobile subscriber marketshare is US smartphone marketshare & Worldwide smartphone marketshare is World wide smartphone marketshare.
2. You never specified which marketshare you were talking about.
Well if I can understand that:
1. US mobile subscriber marketshare is US smartphone marketshare & Worldwide smartphone marketshare is World wide smartphone marketshare.
2. You never specified which marketshare you were talking about.
Sydde
Mar 23, 05:30 PM
"Lying" implies intent. Are you accusing them of lying, or getting it wrong?
We could consider the events surrounding the conviction of I. Lewis Libby. While not conclusive, they strongly suggest mischief at the very least.
... I should EXPECT people to be more critical of the other side.
As I recall, in that time period, to be critical of the administration was to be branded un- or anti-American. How do you feel about Cindy Sheehan? Most right-wing types I know have a basket of tasty epithets for her.
It's much easier than actually addressing your real views... it's a defense mechanism which she uses to avoid serious debate.
I keep seeing these pointless ad hominems popping up in your posts. It really is getting tiresome.
We could consider the events surrounding the conviction of I. Lewis Libby. While not conclusive, they strongly suggest mischief at the very least.
... I should EXPECT people to be more critical of the other side.
As I recall, in that time period, to be critical of the administration was to be branded un- or anti-American. How do you feel about Cindy Sheehan? Most right-wing types I know have a basket of tasty epithets for her.
It's much easier than actually addressing your real views... it's a defense mechanism which she uses to avoid serious debate.
I keep seeing these pointless ad hominems popping up in your posts. It really is getting tiresome.
Blue Velvet
Mar 22, 11:40 PM
Right, because there can't be any other reason why Blue Velvet, or myself, might support military intervention in Libya, but not Iraq. They are exactly the same situation after all.
Although I backed the implementation of a no-fly zone a few weeks ago, I wouldn't describe my position as one of wholehearted support. More a queasy half-hearted recognition that something had to be done and that all alternatives lead to rabbit holes of some degree or another. When all is said and done, my usual fallback position is an intense weariness at the evil that men do.
For the record, I actually supported (if silence is considered consent) both Gulf wars at the start; I believed in the fictional WMD, I believed it when Colin Powell held his little vial up at the UN... but I, like many was tied down with work and other concerns and was only paying cursory attention to the news at the time. Like Obama, I also initially supported the war in Afghanistan, or at least the idea of it, initiated by a Republican president, but since then it seems to have become a fiasco of Catch-22 proportions.
Slowly discovering the real agenda and true ineptness of the Bush administration was a pivotal point in my reawakening political understanding of US current affairs after reading Hunter Thompson for so many years. Disgusted and appalled at the casual way in which we all were lied to, I'm quite happy to hold my hands up and say 'I was wrong'.
Thing is about Obama, I never had any starry-eyed notion about him being a peace-maker. He's an American president, the incentives are cemented into the role as one of using power and protecting wealth. Not that many conservatives were paying attention at the time, but he stood up in front of the Nobel academy when accepting his Nobel Peace Prize and laid out a justification for war.
Since the second Gulf War, the entire circus has been one of my occasional interests, because I've never seen a political process elsewhere riddled with so many bald-faced liars, grotesque characters and half-baked casual hate speech. What power or the sniff of it does to people, twisting them out of shape, is infinitely more interesting and has more impact on us than any other endeavour, except for possibly the parallel development of technology.
George W. Bush is responsible for another calamity: me posting in PRSI, one of my many occasional weaknesses.
Although I backed the implementation of a no-fly zone a few weeks ago, I wouldn't describe my position as one of wholehearted support. More a queasy half-hearted recognition that something had to be done and that all alternatives lead to rabbit holes of some degree or another. When all is said and done, my usual fallback position is an intense weariness at the evil that men do.
For the record, I actually supported (if silence is considered consent) both Gulf wars at the start; I believed in the fictional WMD, I believed it when Colin Powell held his little vial up at the UN... but I, like many was tied down with work and other concerns and was only paying cursory attention to the news at the time. Like Obama, I also initially supported the war in Afghanistan, or at least the idea of it, initiated by a Republican president, but since then it seems to have become a fiasco of Catch-22 proportions.
Slowly discovering the real agenda and true ineptness of the Bush administration was a pivotal point in my reawakening political understanding of US current affairs after reading Hunter Thompson for so many years. Disgusted and appalled at the casual way in which we all were lied to, I'm quite happy to hold my hands up and say 'I was wrong'.
Thing is about Obama, I never had any starry-eyed notion about him being a peace-maker. He's an American president, the incentives are cemented into the role as one of using power and protecting wealth. Not that many conservatives were paying attention at the time, but he stood up in front of the Nobel academy when accepting his Nobel Peace Prize and laid out a justification for war.
Since the second Gulf War, the entire circus has been one of my occasional interests, because I've never seen a political process elsewhere riddled with so many bald-faced liars, grotesque characters and half-baked casual hate speech. What power or the sniff of it does to people, twisting them out of shape, is infinitely more interesting and has more impact on us than any other endeavour, except for possibly the parallel development of technology.
George W. Bush is responsible for another calamity: me posting in PRSI, one of my many occasional weaknesses.
nsjoker
Aug 11, 12:13 PM
this phone is going to have to be pretty amazing for me to get one.. I'm talking a full-fledged iPod with capabilities of a great cell phone.. and decently priced. terminating my contract just isn't worth it from an economical point of view.
amin
Aug 18, 10:28 PM
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac.
It may be obvious, but based on your earlier statement that a Conroe iMac would be "able to crunch through" apps faster than a Mac Pro, the obvious seemed worth identifying.
But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
*snip*
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
*snip*
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
It may be obvious, but based on your earlier statement that a Conroe iMac would be "able to crunch through" apps faster than a Mac Pro, the obvious seemed worth identifying.
But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
*snip*
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
*snip*
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
NJRonbo
Jun 14, 06:04 PM
Wait a sec...
Had to read that again...
If I get a PIN tomorrow at 1pm EST I am guaranteed
a phone on launch day? I don't have to stand in line
that morning?
They told me differently when I called the store citing
NO RESERVATIONS.
Had to read that again...
If I get a PIN tomorrow at 1pm EST I am guaranteed
a phone on launch day? I don't have to stand in line
that morning?
They told me differently when I called the store citing
NO RESERVATIONS.
balamw
Apr 6, 04:14 PM
That's why Apple lost around 30% marketshare in less than two months when the Galaxy tab was released? You know: That's the tablet that runs an outdated phone OS and not even a tablet OS...
Link? Wasn't there the whole story a month or two ago that the actual number of Galaxy Tabs delivered to customers was much less than had been reported. How can this cause a 30% reduction in market share when the HIGH number of Galaxy Tabs was < 10% the number of iPads?
B
Link? Wasn't there the whole story a month or two ago that the actual number of Galaxy Tabs delivered to customers was much less than had been reported. How can this cause a 30% reduction in market share when the HIGH number of Galaxy Tabs was < 10% the number of iPads?
B
bilbo--baggins
Nov 29, 07:33 AM
When Apple have done so much to counter piracy (introducing legal paid-for downloads, music files that cannot be re-distributed freely, generally raising awareness that music piracy is illegal) I hope that they aren't dooped into agreeing a royalty fee on iPods.
Ultimately those of us that buy our music legitimately will be paying for those that pirate music (or the music companies go out of business, which isn't going to happen), but for Apple to agree to pay royalties on iPods would be admitting that the iPod helps/encourages people to pirate music.
There is nothing we can do about it, but it would annoy me just as a matter of principle.
Ultimately those of us that buy our music legitimately will be paying for those that pirate music (or the music companies go out of business, which isn't going to happen), but for Apple to agree to pay royalties on iPods would be admitting that the iPod helps/encourages people to pirate music.
There is nothing we can do about it, but it would annoy me just as a matter of principle.
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.
Zargot
Jul 20, 01:07 PM
New Apple Mac Pro Dual Quad
Dual Intel Xeon 8400 Quardro processors at 3.4Ghz (2 x 4 core)
2Gb Buffered DDR2 RAM
750 Gb Sata2 Hard drive
Blue Ray Super drive 2x
Regular DVD rom in second bay
ATI X1900 video card 512mb PCI express x16
$3950
More like $13,950
:rolleyes:
Dual Intel Xeon 8400 Quardro processors at 3.4Ghz (2 x 4 core)
2Gb Buffered DDR2 RAM
750 Gb Sata2 Hard drive
Blue Ray Super drive 2x
Regular DVD rom in second bay
ATI X1900 video card 512mb PCI express x16
$3950
More like $13,950
:rolleyes:
Leoff
Aug 7, 04:55 AM
As Apple applied for the trademark, it will not be approved.
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
I was going to attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt, but after I saw how much you don't mind "borrowing" elements from Apple's website for your own use, and the fact that you sell Exclusive Star Trek Posters for some reason, I can't take you seriously.
And why does a little Mac Resale joint have a President, anyways?
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
I was going to attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt, but after I saw how much you don't mind "borrowing" elements from Apple's website for your own use, and the fact that you sell Exclusive Star Trek Posters for some reason, I can't take you seriously.
And why does a little Mac Resale joint have a President, anyways?
Highland
Nov 28, 06:49 PM
it's ridiculous for Universal to even be thinking this. NONE of the money would get to artists or anything like that. it would just go to the company.
Yep. I haven't seen any plans for any of the cash to be distributed to the Universal artists. This is appalling behavior.
Btw, Universal (unfortunately) own a pretty massive music catalogue. So if they did threaten to pull out of iTS, Apple might listen. You'd hope it's way too late for that though. I think iTS has enough of a head start that even Universal etc couldn't threaten Apple.
Yep. I haven't seen any plans for any of the cash to be distributed to the Universal artists. This is appalling behavior.
Btw, Universal (unfortunately) own a pretty massive music catalogue. So if they did threaten to pull out of iTS, Apple might listen. You'd hope it's way too late for that though. I think iTS has enough of a head start that even Universal etc couldn't threaten Apple.
cult hero
Mar 26, 12:13 PM
For example SAMBA has been removed and completely replaced with a ground up clean room implementation of SMB2 which will translate into better support for Windows Vista and 7 clients as well as the latest versions of Windows. Why hasn't that been mentioned by the nay sayers here?
Do we know this? I know Samba is being replaced but does anyone have any details?
I presume it's going to have better support for Vista and 7 clients purely because if Apple didn't care about that there would be no reason to ditch the older version of Samba that's GPL2. However, does anyone have any actual details on what Apple's Samba replacement is?
Do we know this? I know Samba is being replaced but does anyone have any details?
I presume it's going to have better support for Vista and 7 clients purely because if Apple didn't care about that there would be no reason to ditch the older version of Samba that's GPL2. However, does anyone have any actual details on what Apple's Samba replacement is?
Consultant
Mar 22, 01:46 PM
It won�t sell because the iPad lines will block the view in store.
Exactly. And that the overpriced 7" RIM playbook basically tried to emulate the Samsung tab.
Exactly. And that the overpriced 7" RIM playbook basically tried to emulate the Samsung tab.
infowarfare
Apr 5, 05:22 PM
Problem is, its still Final Cut and will still suck at managing media.
I'm not trolling, this is an honest question. But isn't a Final Cut pretty much worthless for commercial use without a way to put the results on Blu-Ray?
Really? And yet, it seems to be good enough for the top directors in the industry.... some of the recent Academy nominated films were all edited on Final Cut, including the Cohen Brothers' "True Grit", and "Winter's Bone". Also, David Fincher and Francis Ford Coppola used FCP on their last films... these are all people that have access and can afford cutting their films on AVID and yet, they recently choose Final Cut Pro... so why do people even question it? :rolleyes:
I'm not trolling, this is an honest question. But isn't a Final Cut pretty much worthless for commercial use without a way to put the results on Blu-Ray?
Really? And yet, it seems to be good enough for the top directors in the industry.... some of the recent Academy nominated films were all edited on Final Cut, including the Cohen Brothers' "True Grit", and "Winter's Bone". Also, David Fincher and Francis Ford Coppola used FCP on their last films... these are all people that have access and can afford cutting their films on AVID and yet, they recently choose Final Cut Pro... so why do people even question it? :rolleyes:
nunes013
Mar 25, 10:34 PM
maybe they will release it in late july instead of late august like snow leopard. does anyone remember how much leopard cost. snow leopard wasnt really a new OS. just a speed bump from leopard so thats why it was $30. i just want to get an idea of what they price lion at because i heard $120 a while ago.
FriarNurgle
Apr 27, 08:17 AM
for all the tin foil hatters out there, what will happen to the phone performance when the location services are turned off?
EGT
Nov 29, 06:28 AM
I was waiting for this to happen. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. (Go Steve!)
Bloody Universal. :rolleyes:
Bloody Universal. :rolleyes:
shawnce
Jul 14, 11:20 PM
AARGH MY EARS!
Whoever came up with that abomination should be SHOT! UGH! they could have put together a nice little slideshow or whatever...but no, they had to make some stupid video with a horrible song i'll NEVER be able to get out of my head!
School House Rock - "Oh, I'm just a bill, a lonely old bill, sitting here on Capitol Hill" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1569494088/002-8458341-9463244?redirect=true)
Whoever came up with that abomination should be SHOT! UGH! they could have put together a nice little slideshow or whatever...but no, they had to make some stupid video with a horrible song i'll NEVER be able to get out of my head!
School House Rock - "Oh, I'm just a bill, a lonely old bill, sitting here on Capitol Hill" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1569494088/002-8458341-9463244?redirect=true)
NoSmokingBandit
Aug 18, 10:37 PM
I hate how some people think the ~800 standard cars are going to look like GT4 cars. Obviously they wont, because even at half the poly density of the premium cars they would still look gorgeous.
Meh, haters gonna hate as the kids say.
I just hope the it has a 2008 cobalt in the game. My friend claims the focus is one of the worst cars ever made but he drives a cobalt :rolleyes: So i want to pit them against each other on a track.
Meh, haters gonna hate as the kids say.
I just hope the it has a 2008 cobalt in the game. My friend claims the focus is one of the worst cars ever made but he drives a cobalt :rolleyes: So i want to pit them against each other on a track.
tortoise
Aug 23, 03:04 PM
Do you have a reference showing that this translates to better performance in real-world application tests in a head to head competition?
Not handy, since a lot of this happened on mailing lists.
The short version is that the memory performance scales in a very sub-linear fashion as a function of the number of cores being used, whereas Opteron scalability is almost linear up to a large number of cores. The good news is that for single dual-core processors the memory performance is on par with dual-core Opterons and their in-cache performance can be better. The bad news is that this performance does not hold as you scale cores in a system. So for some applications (e.g. those that live mostly in cache) the Woodcrest processors will be mildly faster than Opterons, but for most the performance is about even in real app benchmarks.
I've seen fairly comprehensive benchmarks for both databases and scientific computing applications, both of which thoroughly exercise the memory subsystem. Even though a single Intel core theoretically has more bandwidth, the high latency means that the real bandwidth is about the same as the slower Opterons (which have real bandwidth that approaches theoretical) and the cross-sectional bandwidth of Opterons when you get up to 4 cores and higher is much higher since the scaling is almost linear with the number of cores. For Intel, I think it was the case that a bigger cache was a cheaper design choice than a truly scalable memory subsystem. As a result, they will have different competencies. Some types of floating point codes should run very well on Intel.
Not handy, since a lot of this happened on mailing lists.
The short version is that the memory performance scales in a very sub-linear fashion as a function of the number of cores being used, whereas Opteron scalability is almost linear up to a large number of cores. The good news is that for single dual-core processors the memory performance is on par with dual-core Opterons and their in-cache performance can be better. The bad news is that this performance does not hold as you scale cores in a system. So for some applications (e.g. those that live mostly in cache) the Woodcrest processors will be mildly faster than Opterons, but for most the performance is about even in real app benchmarks.
I've seen fairly comprehensive benchmarks for both databases and scientific computing applications, both of which thoroughly exercise the memory subsystem. Even though a single Intel core theoretically has more bandwidth, the high latency means that the real bandwidth is about the same as the slower Opterons (which have real bandwidth that approaches theoretical) and the cross-sectional bandwidth of Opterons when you get up to 4 cores and higher is much higher since the scaling is almost linear with the number of cores. For Intel, I think it was the case that a bigger cache was a cheaper design choice than a truly scalable memory subsystem. As a result, they will have different competencies. Some types of floating point codes should run very well on Intel.
No comments:
Post a Comment