yg17
Apr 27, 09:21 AM
He could have released this years ago.
Why should he? He released the short form BC, which is valid and legal proof of citizenship.
Hawaii law states that no one can request an original long form BC, not even the person who's name is on the BC, so Obama had to call in a few favors to get this. I'm surprised the right wing loons aren't accusing him of overstepping his bounds and destroying states' rights to get it.
Why should he? He released the short form BC, which is valid and legal proof of citizenship.
Hawaii law states that no one can request an original long form BC, not even the person who's name is on the BC, so Obama had to call in a few favors to get this. I'm surprised the right wing loons aren't accusing him of overstepping his bounds and destroying states' rights to get it.
centauratlas
Apr 6, 02:19 PM
I read it somewhere, where was it, oh yeah, HERE ( http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/06/apples-suppliers-ship-roughly-2-5-million-ipad-2s-in-march/) that Apple sold around 2.5 million iPad 2s in March (plus a lot of older iPad 1 stock). And that was about 3 weeks from launch day.
And they expect around 12 million per quarter according to the article here earlier today. Talk about a huge difference....nearly 110,000 iPad 2s per day! Plus a lot of original iPads.
And they expect around 12 million per quarter according to the article here earlier today. Talk about a huge difference....nearly 110,000 iPad 2s per day! Plus a lot of original iPads.
firestarter
Apr 5, 06:32 PM
Time for my 8 cores to start all being used at the same time.
++, finally!
I'm hoping they sell it on the App store. I prefer the licensing management and model on there. (Although 50GB might be a problem!!)
++, finally!
I'm hoping they sell it on the App store. I prefer the licensing management and model on there. (Although 50GB might be a problem!!)
steadysignal
Apr 8, 07:16 AM
Screwing around is how they lost Macs in the first place. They wanted to only sell certain iMac Colors and Apple said you can sell what we send or not at all, that's why Apple left them in the first place years ago. Then they cam back with the "store in a store" concept.
new information for me. did not know that BB sold :apple: product in the past. i had thought the store in a store thing was BBs first foray.
i don't understand why apple would have issues with BB - isn't more exposure good? or is this just a matter of any attention (good or bad) is good?
new information for me. did not know that BB sold :apple: product in the past. i had thought the store in a store thing was BBs first foray.
i don't understand why apple would have issues with BB - isn't more exposure good? or is this just a matter of any attention (good or bad) is good?
twoodcc
Nov 28, 08:17 PM
Won't happen.
yeah, i hope you're right. just doesn't seem right
yeah, i hope you're right. just doesn't seem right
epitaphic
Aug 18, 09:06 PM
Do you think a Conroe iMac will beat a Mac Pro due to lower memory latency alone? Do you have real experience or data regarding how horrendous a problem this is? Extra dual-core processor aside, the Mac Pro has a higher speed FSB, higher memory bus bandwidth, higher RAM capacity, and ability to set up internal RAID amongst other advantages over a Conroe iMac.
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac. 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.
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
the Mac Pro (...) actually takes longer to access main memory than the Core Duo processor in the MacBook Pro. This is much worse than it sounds once you take into account the fact that the MacBook Pro features a 667MHz FSB compared to the 1333MHz FSB (per chip) used in the Mac Pro.
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?
It's not Apple's fault, but FB-DIMMs absolutely kill memory latency; even running in quad channel mode, the FB-DIMM equipped Mac Pro takes 45% more time to access memory than our DDR2 equipped test bed at the same memory frequency.
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.
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac. 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.
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
the Mac Pro (...) actually takes longer to access main memory than the Core Duo processor in the MacBook Pro. This is much worse than it sounds once you take into account the fact that the MacBook Pro features a 667MHz FSB compared to the 1333MHz FSB (per chip) used in the Mac Pro.
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?
It's not Apple's fault, but FB-DIMMs absolutely kill memory latency; even running in quad channel mode, the FB-DIMM equipped Mac Pro takes 45% more time to access memory than our DDR2 equipped test bed at the same memory frequency.
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.
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
Snowy_River
Jul 28, 03:26 PM
Dan=='s mockup is something that I had considered before, I remember talking about it with Yvan 256 at some point as something like "the return of the Cube." I think it's a pretty good design, the guts of the Mini are so packed as it is, an expanded case would allow for a substantial upgrade in components, including the oft clamored for dedicated GPU.
Another way Apple could do it is just to elongate the Mini's case to make it just as svelte vertically, only slightly wider. Could you take a run at that one Dan==? ;)
Okay, I did some tinkering myself, just for kicks, and here's what I came up with. I thought that we were talking about a computer that was somewhere between a Mac Mini and a Mac Pro (Power Mac), so I thought, maybe the style should be a combination of the two. Let me know what you think.
It's not a Mac Plus... It's a Mac++!
http://www.ghwphoto.com/Mac++1.PNGhttp://www.ghwphoto.com/Mac++2.PNG
Another way Apple could do it is just to elongate the Mini's case to make it just as svelte vertically, only slightly wider. Could you take a run at that one Dan==? ;)
Okay, I did some tinkering myself, just for kicks, and here's what I came up with. I thought that we were talking about a computer that was somewhere between a Mac Mini and a Mac Pro (Power Mac), so I thought, maybe the style should be a combination of the two. Let me know what you think.
It's not a Mac Plus... It's a Mac++!
http://www.ghwphoto.com/Mac++1.PNGhttp://www.ghwphoto.com/Mac++2.PNG
toddybody
Apr 6, 11:15 AM
BTW: Im so glad to have some MAC rumors to talk about...the 24/7 iOS fest gets tiresome :rolleyes:
mbob
Apr 11, 03:23 PM
So a 50" SD tv is better than a 42" High Def tv?
Nope. But a 50" 1080p is better than a 42" 1080p.
Nope. But a 50" 1080p is better than a 42" 1080p.
jeanlain
Apr 10, 09:22 AM
Anyone else call BS on that whole article?
Second: Didn't ANYONE realize this is all rumor and speculation? Not fact?
No.
What rumor, that the next FCP was demoed at Cupertino to a panel of editors, and that Apple will be at Supermeet? This is basically fact at this stage. The rest is just vague statements and logical conclusions.
Second: Didn't ANYONE realize this is all rumor and speculation? Not fact?
No.
What rumor, that the next FCP was demoed at Cupertino to a panel of editors, and that Apple will be at Supermeet? This is basically fact at this stage. The rest is just vague statements and logical conclusions.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 10:50 AM
These iPhone rumours continue to persist. I admit to being a sceptic, but maybe I'm wrong! I just hope that if they do do it, they do it well.
It is an absolute necessity for Apple to introduce something like the iPhone. Especially after the introduction of cellphones like e.g. SE W810i which basically includes a top-of-the-line 4Gb Nano. The swan song of portable-mp3-only-players has begun.
I am sure Rokr just was a big public hard/software test and not really intended to amaze the market as iPod once did.
The upcoming iPhone on the other hand... I guess THAT is a whole different story.
It is an absolute necessity for Apple to introduce something like the iPhone. Especially after the introduction of cellphones like e.g. SE W810i which basically includes a top-of-the-line 4Gb Nano. The swan song of portable-mp3-only-players has begun.
I am sure Rokr just was a big public hard/software test and not really intended to amaze the market as iPod once did.
The upcoming iPhone on the other hand... I guess THAT is a whole different story.
epitaphic
Aug 17, 12:54 PM
The interesting thing to note from the Anandtech review is that to saturate a 2 core setup, all you need is one program. To saturate a quad, you need to be doing a bit more at the same time. To saturate an octo, you need to be doing a hell of a lot of things at the same time.
Now I don't know bout you lot, but there's only so much I can do at the same time. Sure it helps to be able to run anything I like and still use FCP with no performance hit. So I think a quad is perfect for that. But when it comes to 8+ cores, your actual workflow won't improve in the slightest unless it doesn't involve you having to do anything (eg run 4 instances of handbrake). I'm sure everyone once in a while has some work that can just be delegated to the CPU and it does its thing, but for the most part, where your attention and brain is needed, an 8 core will sit at least 50% idle.
Considering Clovertowns will have a slower, twice saturated FSB and lower clock speeds, most people will be better off (financially and productively) with Woodcrests. I'm just hoping that when octos are announced, the quads will drop in price.
Now if they start to optimise apps to take full advantage of more than 2 cores, that's a whole different ballgame ;)
Now I don't know bout you lot, but there's only so much I can do at the same time. Sure it helps to be able to run anything I like and still use FCP with no performance hit. So I think a quad is perfect for that. But when it comes to 8+ cores, your actual workflow won't improve in the slightest unless it doesn't involve you having to do anything (eg run 4 instances of handbrake). I'm sure everyone once in a while has some work that can just be delegated to the CPU and it does its thing, but for the most part, where your attention and brain is needed, an 8 core will sit at least 50% idle.
Considering Clovertowns will have a slower, twice saturated FSB and lower clock speeds, most people will be better off (financially and productively) with Woodcrests. I'm just hoping that when octos are announced, the quads will drop in price.
Now if they start to optimise apps to take full advantage of more than 2 cores, that's a whole different ballgame ;)
Macaroony
Mar 3, 03:40 AM
Bill, I would love to hear your explanation for the position of the male prostate.
A quick side note: Sexual tension is most often the cause for anger, jealousy and frustration. So, if everyone had at least one good orgasm every day, the world would be a much more relaxed and peaceful place and we wouldn't have the need for silly discussions such as these.
A quick side note: Sexual tension is most often the cause for anger, jealousy and frustration. So, if everyone had at least one good orgasm every day, the world would be a much more relaxed and peaceful place and we wouldn't have the need for silly discussions such as these.
WildCowboy
Aug 16, 11:32 PM
Bravo.
I don't know what ROFL stands for, but from context-clues, I'm thinking it means pretty damn funny. In which case, ROFL, dude.
Rolling On Floor Laughing
I don't know what ROFL stands for, but from context-clues, I'm thinking it means pretty damn funny. In which case, ROFL, dude.
Rolling On Floor Laughing
DeathChill
Aug 7, 08:33 PM
Well I wouldn't say "Nothing" as obviously it required a lot of programmer time to move the OS to Intel, create the new XCode compiler, create & debug rosetta, re-write all of the iLife, and Pro-Apps offered by Apple, etc. etc.
Eh, they didn't create Rosetta, Transitive did. The creation of XCode was already done, they just added a package so Intel compiling was possible. They didn't rewrite all of iLife or any of the pro-apps, did they? All they did was fix anything that relied on PowerPC in order to make them Universal.
However, I want to know if the developers are getting a copy of Leopard within the next few days!
Eh, they didn't create Rosetta, Transitive did. The creation of XCode was already done, they just added a package so Intel compiling was possible. They didn't rewrite all of iLife or any of the pro-apps, did they? All they did was fix anything that relied on PowerPC in order to make them Universal.
However, I want to know if the developers are getting a copy of Leopard within the next few days!
vincenz
Apr 6, 10:22 AM
If the new airs are going to be anywhere near as powerful as the current MacBook pros, they're going to sell for sure.
wpotere
Apr 27, 09:49 AM
Did he release a different form of the document today?
To catch you up... There are two versions of the form, the long and short. The long form is the one that you are used to seeing and the short is an abbreviated version that is just a as legal. Many states are using the short now including Hawaii. If he is holding a clearance (which he is), he will have had a background check and these documents would have been submitted. Basically he was cleared with no problems. This is just people raising hell of something stupid.
To catch you up... There are two versions of the form, the long and short. The long form is the one that you are used to seeing and the short is an abbreviated version that is just a as legal. Many states are using the short now including Hawaii. If he is holding a clearance (which he is), he will have had a background check and these documents would have been submitted. Basically he was cleared with no problems. This is just people raising hell of something stupid.
WildCowboy
Sep 18, 11:03 PM
It would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath. I've still got another couple of revisions before I'm ready to buy, so I'll be sitting this one out.
My gut feeling is that there won't be any new hardware at Photokina, but a later release of the MeromBooks in time for Christmas is certainly possible.
My gut feeling is that there won't be any new hardware at Photokina, but a later release of the MeromBooks in time for Christmas is certainly possible.
BC2009
Apr 12, 06:06 PM
Are you serious? Your comments are not only incorrect but just flat out ignorant. Whoever said that angry birds is not available on android obviously can't read or just does not know how to use the app store because I have all three on my Thunderbolt and they are full versions and they were free to boot. So before you go make comments about people being ignorant you might want to do some research first!!
Perhaps you should re-read my post since obviously you either "can't read" or you are "flat out ignorant". I said that my brother-in-law who loves Android claimed that Angry Birds was only available on Android and not iOS. I never contested that it was available on Android, only that I had to show him that it was in fact available on iOS in many variants (Free, Paid, HD for iPad, Seasons, etc...). It was my brother-in-law's belief that this game was not available to iPhone and iPad users. I had to tell him that it was available on iOS long before Android.
Perhaps you should re-read my post since obviously you either "can't read" or you are "flat out ignorant". I said that my brother-in-law who loves Android claimed that Angry Birds was only available on Android and not iOS. I never contested that it was available on Android, only that I had to show him that it was in fact available on iOS in many variants (Free, Paid, HD for iPad, Seasons, etc...). It was my brother-in-law's belief that this game was not available to iPhone and iPad users. I had to tell him that it was available on iOS long before Android.
Evangelion
Aug 18, 04:44 AM
Yes, I love my Quad G5 -- ROCK Solid. I agree with you.
Untill the cooling-solution starts to leak fluids, that is ;)?
Untill the cooling-solution starts to leak fluids, that is ;)?
FFTT
Sep 13, 11:07 PM
The current Mac Pro and even the Core Duo 2 iMacs are both amazing upgrades
to what most people were running 2 years ago.
Generally, I recommend waiting for those who already have a working OSX Tiger
machine.
However, if you NEED a new Pro workstation, the Mac Pro will pay for itself
in productivlty.
We also don't know how cool these new quad core processors will run.
At least we do know that the current Mac Pro is extemely quiet with power to spare.
to what most people were running 2 years ago.
Generally, I recommend waiting for those who already have a working OSX Tiger
machine.
However, if you NEED a new Pro workstation, the Mac Pro will pay for itself
in productivlty.
We also don't know how cool these new quad core processors will run.
At least we do know that the current Mac Pro is extemely quiet with power to spare.
john123
Sep 19, 09:57 AM
The pre-release tests I saw reckoned Merom was about 25% faster with 7% longer battery life. Though they are pretty meaningless figures and we won't know until Merom is actually in a Macbook and a comparable test can be made.
I'd imagine there will be far bigger improvements to both with Santa Rosa and nand cache (which I presume Apple will support) than there is with Merom.
Check out the iMac benchmarks. The actual speed improvement (i.e., not the Intel hyped numbers) are much more modest.
I'd imagine there will be far bigger improvements to both with Santa Rosa and nand cache (which I presume Apple will support) than there is with Merom.
Check out the iMac benchmarks. The actual speed improvement (i.e., not the Intel hyped numbers) are much more modest.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 1, 04:13 AM
You can condemn me to Hell if you want to, I'm still gonna bump uglies with my girlfriend.
On another note, please join us in the 21st century. Why is it so important to you what other people do? Wouldn't it be very crowded in Heaven if everyone did as you said?
I have no right to condemn anyone to hell.
If heaven were very crowded, it wouldn't be very heavenly, would it?
On another note, please join us in the 21st century. Why is it so important to you what other people do? Wouldn't it be very crowded in Heaven if everyone did as you said?
I have no right to condemn anyone to hell.
If heaven were very crowded, it wouldn't be very heavenly, would it?
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment