mwswami
Jul 22, 09:53 AM
(Cloverton or Clovertown?)
It's Clovertown.
Here is a link to description of the Intel Core Microarchitecture (http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture/coremicro/) on Intel.com. Search for Clovertown.
It's Clovertown.
Here is a link to description of the Intel Core Microarchitecture (http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture/coremicro/) on Intel.com. Search for Clovertown.
fastlane1588
Jul 27, 11:52 PM
so everyone keeps saying wwdc for all of the hardware releases....well seeing as how apple enjoys releasing stuff on tuesdays there happens to be a tuesday before wwdc. what if they just either quitely released everything or anounced everything that tuesday. that way they arent slow about releasing, and everyone will be set for when they talk about leopard and all the cool apps that they can run on their new machines,
this way they can also keep the focus of wwdc on the software instead of trying to squeeze new releases and software demos and all into one event......just a thought
this way they can also keep the focus of wwdc on the software instead of trying to squeeze new releases and software demos and all into one event......just a thought
Evangelion
Aug 12, 03:51 AM
Is it possible for Apple to release a phone sold in their stores that would work on all networks? Or have several versions of the phone that will work for Verizon, Cingular...
I'll never be ceased at just how retarded the phone-system is outside Finland (or Scandinavia). I just buy a phone, and I get a SIM-card, and boom, it just works. I can replace the SIM at will, and it will just work. No hassle, no worries that "but this phone wotn work with that operator!". Unsatisfied with your current operator? It takes maybe ten minutes to get a new operator, and you get to keep your old number, AND your phone (it is YOUR phone, after all!).
I think that the scheme where the phones are tied to certain operator is just plain retarded. This is a perfect example as to why that is so. And I'm REALLY surprised that you folks (the rest of the world that is) hasn't seen the light on this issue. You just happily accept a scheme that limits choice and competition.
I'll never be ceased at just how retarded the phone-system is outside Finland (or Scandinavia). I just buy a phone, and I get a SIM-card, and boom, it just works. I can replace the SIM at will, and it will just work. No hassle, no worries that "but this phone wotn work with that operator!". Unsatisfied with your current operator? It takes maybe ten minutes to get a new operator, and you get to keep your old number, AND your phone (it is YOUR phone, after all!).
I think that the scheme where the phones are tied to certain operator is just plain retarded. This is a perfect example as to why that is so. And I'm REALLY surprised that you folks (the rest of the world that is) hasn't seen the light on this issue. You just happily accept a scheme that limits choice and competition.
epitaphic
Sep 13, 10:53 AM
What about Tigerton (2007)? Isn't that a "true" quad?
Intel has two lines of Xeon processors:
* The 5000 series is DP (dual processor, like Woodcrest, Clovertown)
* The 7000 series MP (multi processor - eg 4+ processors)
Tigerton is supposed to be an MP version of Clovertown. Meaning, you can have as many chips as the motherboard supports, and just like Clovertown its an MCM (two processors in one package). 7000's are also about 5-10x the price of 5000's.
So unless the specs for Tigerton severely change, no point even considering it on a Mac Pro (high end xserve is plausible).
Intel has two lines of Xeon processors:
* The 5000 series is DP (dual processor, like Woodcrest, Clovertown)
* The 7000 series MP (multi processor - eg 4+ processors)
Tigerton is supposed to be an MP version of Clovertown. Meaning, you can have as many chips as the motherboard supports, and just like Clovertown its an MCM (two processors in one package). 7000's are also about 5-10x the price of 5000's.
So unless the specs for Tigerton severely change, no point even considering it on a Mac Pro (high end xserve is plausible).
maclaptop
Apr 13, 03:26 PM
1) I'm perfectly happy with the data speeds I get on AT&T 3G. I would guess the new 4G phones will suffer in battery life. I don't want to give up battery life for network speed I don't really need. If I had to choose I would choose battery life every time.
2) It's not the cost of the phone, its the cost of the data plan. I would guess it will be like the iPhone 3G launch where AT&T forced you into a 3G plan even if you didn't have 3G coverage in your area.
3) I currently have unlimited data with AT&T which I would like to keep. I doubt very seriously this will be an option with the new "4G" network plans.
4) I can wait for a "4G" phone until there is decent "4G" coverage.
1) Me too
2) I Agree
3) I'm sure you're right
4) Me too
Great post :)
2) It's not the cost of the phone, its the cost of the data plan. I would guess it will be like the iPhone 3G launch where AT&T forced you into a 3G plan even if you didn't have 3G coverage in your area.
3) I currently have unlimited data with AT&T which I would like to keep. I doubt very seriously this will be an option with the new "4G" network plans.
4) I can wait for a "4G" phone until there is decent "4G" coverage.
1) Me too
2) I Agree
3) I'm sure you're right
4) Me too
Great post :)
bibbz
Jun 9, 08:49 AM
I have a feeling that those trade-in prices will be substantially reduced once the iPhone 4 is released.
I imagine they will be, but look at the page at the 3G and original iphone values. They will still be at or over $100 at the least.
I imagine they will be, but look at the page at the 3G and original iphone values. They will still be at or over $100 at the least.
lgutie20
Apr 11, 11:57 AM
I don't see why people understand from the WWDC invitation that there will be no iPhone 5 during the event and that they will only talk about software!
WWDC is the biggest event and the only adequate platform to present the most popular Apple product! I don't see them changing their formula any time soon even if a software revolution is to take over WWDC.
WWDC is the biggest event and the only adequate platform to present the most popular Apple product! I don't see them changing their formula any time soon even if a software revolution is to take over WWDC.
AppleScruff1
Apr 19, 10:31 PM
It does not matter that it was not US company as long as they were registered in US. Remember Apple suing Australian supermarket chain company for using as their log letter W which slightly resembled an apple?
I totally forgot about that! What a joke. Apple has become the king of hypocrites. And they copied the Apple logo from the Beatle's Apple Records.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Apple-Woolworths-logo-lawsuit,8784.html
http://gizmodo.com/#!5374027/deja-vu-apple-sues-someone-because-their-logo-looks-like-fruit
http://www.theage.com.au/business/apple-bites-over-woolworths-logo-20091005-ghzr.html
I totally forgot about that! What a joke. Apple has become the king of hypocrites. And they copied the Apple logo from the Beatle's Apple Records.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Apple-Woolworths-logo-lawsuit,8784.html
http://gizmodo.com/#!5374027/deja-vu-apple-sues-someone-because-their-logo-looks-like-fruit
http://www.theage.com.au/business/apple-bites-over-woolworths-logo-20091005-ghzr.html
Homy
Jul 20, 11:44 AM
eight cores + Tiger = Octopussy?!?:p
Hamish
Apr 11, 10:36 PM
Looking forward to the new final cut studio.
if apple is smart they will allow access to individual parts of the suite
as seperate Mac App Store downloads.
If it were possible to buy apple Motion on it's own I think many existing After Effects would be very happy to have something else to play with that can take adavantage of their hardware and deliver some fun realtime workflows...
it could be a halo product for such editors as well to end up using the whole suite...
I bought motion for 300 when it used to be sold individually, and I have spent a tonne of money since simply because I love that product.
do it apple. please.
if apple is smart they will allow access to individual parts of the suite
as seperate Mac App Store downloads.
If it were possible to buy apple Motion on it's own I think many existing After Effects would be very happy to have something else to play with that can take adavantage of their hardware and deliver some fun realtime workflows...
it could be a halo product for such editors as well to end up using the whole suite...
I bought motion for 300 when it used to be sold individually, and I have spent a tonne of money since simply because I love that product.
do it apple. please.
fabian9
Apr 11, 01:08 PM
"the 3GS also adds support for 7.2 Mbit/s HSDPA allowing faster downlink speeds"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_3GS
Technically he's right.
Technically, I'm right, you can't "add" 3GS, because 3GS isn't a standard. :p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_3GS
Technically he's right.
Technically, I'm right, you can't "add" 3GS, because 3GS isn't a standard. :p
stukick
Apr 8, 06:19 AM
Apple at Best Buy sucks anyway. No one in the store knows anything about Apple products. I love eavesdropping on a customer and sales person while they try and answer or explain Apple products to a potential customer. Usually after the sales person walks away, I swoop in and answer any of the customer's questions...correctly. :)
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.
vincenz
Apr 28, 01:30 PM
Trump is the ultimate troll. Worst of all, he's just getting tons of free publicity every time the subject is brought up.
superleccy
Nov 28, 06:34 PM
No no no no no no NO. For all the reasons that everyone has already said.
:mad:
:mad:
Chundles
Jul 20, 08:10 AM
Hmm, would make for an awesome rev b. MacPro on or around MWSF (probably "around" as MWSF is really a big consumer event).
Bring on the serious grunt!!
Bring on the serious grunt!!
ChrisA
Jul 27, 12:18 PM
With things like this, my rule is: If you have to ask, then you can't do it :-(
How true. The processor is soldered to the logic board on the notebooks It is in a socket in the iMac. So yes iMacs will be easy to upgrade but MB and MBP will require conciderable level of skill and some very specialized equipment. There may be 3rd parties offing the upgrade some day
Why would they solder the CPU? Saves the space of a socket. Heat transfer is better, very little chance of it comming loose. Those socets add not a small amount of height to the chip
How true. The processor is soldered to the logic board on the notebooks It is in a socket in the iMac. So yes iMacs will be easy to upgrade but MB and MBP will require conciderable level of skill and some very specialized equipment. There may be 3rd parties offing the upgrade some day
Why would they solder the CPU? Saves the space of a socket. Heat transfer is better, very little chance of it comming loose. Those socets add not a small amount of height to the chip
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.
JM-Prod
Apr 10, 09:44 AM
It needs to come with a 27 inch multi-touch surface to use as the primary work surface, with my current 27 inch monitor as the head-up dual-monitor (input-output-view).
This is long overdue. If apple won't make it, AVID should. ASAP! :)
And for all us professionals, price is not an issue. We want it to be expensive, and so nice that people will rent out facilities.
Bring it on Apple!
This would be the perfect gifts for the pro-world, after helping you back from bankruptcy, remember dear Apple?
Best,
Jon M.
This is long overdue. If apple won't make it, AVID should. ASAP! :)
And for all us professionals, price is not an issue. We want it to be expensive, and so nice that people will rent out facilities.
Bring it on Apple!
This would be the perfect gifts for the pro-world, after helping you back from bankruptcy, remember dear Apple?
Best,
Jon M.
john123
Sep 19, 09:35 AM
You can get a real speed boost just by compiling to 64-bit (naturally this depends on the source). The 64-bit benefit will increase over time on the Mac platform. On 64-bit Gentoo I had the chance to compare 32-bit & 64-bit binaries on exactly the same PC, & disagree entirely with your statement. Programs that can take advantage of 64-bit architecture, & are subsequently compiled for it, are definitely something to be desired.
Add grudging 32-bit hanger-ons to the spoiled 13 year olds on here.
Sometimes you can; sometimes not. That depends on a lot of factors. It's not universal. On the cluster we designed at my office with Opterons, we are actually using 32 bit (albeit with some software enhancements) because it came out considerably faster than the 64 bit implementations. So it's not a universal thing.
Add grudging 32-bit hanger-ons to the spoiled 13 year olds on here.
Sometimes you can; sometimes not. That depends on a lot of factors. It's not universal. On the cluster we designed at my office with Opterons, we are actually using 32 bit (albeit with some software enhancements) because it came out considerably faster than the 64 bit implementations. So it's not a universal thing.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 24, 01:07 PM
Oh. So when a person criticizes Obama for keeping us in Afghanistan, Iraq, and/or Libya, just level an accusation of racism.
Got it.
The vast majority of conservatives are WASP-ish, and almost all of the people who question Obama's religion/nationality are self-described conservatives. Furthermore, conservatives as a group refuse to admit that this is the case. Got that?
Got it.
The vast majority of conservatives are WASP-ish, and almost all of the people who question Obama's religion/nationality are self-described conservatives. Furthermore, conservatives as a group refuse to admit that this is the case. Got that?
marksman
Mar 22, 01:31 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Yeah a 50% smaller screen for the same price and less battery life is certainly going to crush the iPad2.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Yeah a 50% smaller screen for the same price and less battery life is certainly going to crush the iPad2.
BlizzardBomb
Aug 6, 05:17 PM
Sources inform me that it is going to be blue.
:p
No way! :p Well looking back, it seems to get swooshier as time goes on, maybe that's a pointer ;) But what if... there's something radically different? :eek:
:p
No way! :p Well looking back, it seems to get swooshier as time goes on, maybe that's a pointer ;) But what if... there's something radically different? :eek:
jeanlain
Apr 12, 04:22 AM
I'm on a 2006 Mac Pro 2.66GHz.
I never set up QMaster. It's installed, but I never touched it. Mpeg2 (highest quality double pass) saturates all cores.
EDIT: sending to compressor from the timeline doesn't change. FCP and compressor together use 350% CPU (400% max).
I never set up QMaster. It's installed, but I never touched it. Mpeg2 (highest quality double pass) saturates all cores.
EDIT: sending to compressor from the timeline doesn't change. FCP and compressor together use 350% CPU (400% max).