Nuvi
Apr 11, 12:50 AM
He's also the guy that headed up Adobe Premiere. Sure, the iMovie revamp wasn't a high point but the guy laid the foundations for two of the three most popular NLE's so he can't be all bad. ;)
Lethal
And if Randy / Apple screws it up then we can always do this (http://www.avid.com/US/specialoffers/fcppromotion?intcmp=AV-HP-S3).
Lethal
And if Randy / Apple screws it up then we can always do this (http://www.avid.com/US/specialoffers/fcppromotion?intcmp=AV-HP-S3).
aohus
Apr 19, 01:52 PM
wow @ post 2.
apple will have a hard time fighting this in court.
apple will have a hard time fighting this in court.
manu chao
Aug 27, 05:31 AM
You're screwing up, intel. We don't want 300 trillion transistors on a 1 nm die. We want longer battery life. Idiots.
Don't blame Intel, blame Apple for not using the ULV versions of the Core Duo chips. There are other manufacturers which use them (otherwise it would not make much sense for Intel to offer them).
However, the battery life of these machines is maybe in the order of six hours only, for once because the screen, HD etc. still need the same amount of power. Making the screen smaller, using Intel graphics, maybe even a 1.8" HD, you can reduce power consumption further, most often manufacturers also reduce battery size at the same time to make the laptops lightweight, preventing you to see battery life numbers of ten hours.
Moreover, reports about machines using the ULV versions (and sometimes 1.8" HDs) do complain about the performance.
Don't blame Intel, blame Apple for not using the ULV versions of the Core Duo chips. There are other manufacturers which use them (otherwise it would not make much sense for Intel to offer them).
However, the battery life of these machines is maybe in the order of six hours only, for once because the screen, HD etc. still need the same amount of power. Making the screen smaller, using Intel graphics, maybe even a 1.8" HD, you can reduce power consumption further, most often manufacturers also reduce battery size at the same time to make the laptops lightweight, preventing you to see battery life numbers of ten hours.
Moreover, reports about machines using the ULV versions (and sometimes 1.8" HDs) do complain about the performance.
ready2switch
Sep 19, 09:32 AM
It gets annoying. Why? Because it's true and most people don't want to admit it.
In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.
As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.
Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.
62% of all statistics are made up to add false weight to the speaker's argument.
:eek:
Unless you have conducted or can site a scientific study calculating exactly how mac users USE their apple machine, stop calling other people annoying and claiming to know exactly how overpowered these systems are for "most" of the users.
In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.
As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.
Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.
62% of all statistics are made up to add false weight to the speaker's argument.
:eek:
Unless you have conducted or can site a scientific study calculating exactly how mac users USE their apple machine, stop calling other people annoying and claiming to know exactly how overpowered these systems are for "most" of the users.
AidenShaw
Aug 27, 07:53 AM
You're screwing up, intel. We don't want 300 trillion transistors on a 1 nm die. We want longer battery life. Idiots.
Check this table of Core processor power consumptions (http://spamreaper.org/frankie/macintel.html).
Intel is making Core processors that draw 5.5 watts, Apple is using the versions that draw more than 30 watts.
Check this table of Core processor power consumptions (http://spamreaper.org/frankie/macintel.html).
Intel is making Core processors that draw 5.5 watts, Apple is using the versions that draw more than 30 watts.
11thIndian
Apr 6, 06:50 PM
I mean 3D objects with materials, textures, shaders, better lighting, better shadows, no crashing several times a day...
3D like ProAnimator FX or Kinemac at least. No plugin required.
Hey I'm always one for adding more functionality to a program, but I'm no longer naive enough to think that everything I could ever want will come bundled in the Studio. Plug-ins are an essential part of every pro product. When a developer can spend 100% of their time delivering a single feature REALLY well [and get paid for it], it will always be better than what the basic software can provide.
The best thing Apple can do is provide a solid and powerful base that developers can build their tools on.
How come no one complains that After Effects doesn't come bundled with Trapcode Particular?
As to your crashing issues. Obviously I can't say. I do have Motion crash occasionally, but it's no more or less frequent than a similarly complicated AE comp on my system.
3D like ProAnimator FX or Kinemac at least. No plugin required.
Hey I'm always one for adding more functionality to a program, but I'm no longer naive enough to think that everything I could ever want will come bundled in the Studio. Plug-ins are an essential part of every pro product. When a developer can spend 100% of their time delivering a single feature REALLY well [and get paid for it], it will always be better than what the basic software can provide.
The best thing Apple can do is provide a solid and powerful base that developers can build their tools on.
How come no one complains that After Effects doesn't come bundled with Trapcode Particular?
As to your crashing issues. Obviously I can't say. I do have Motion crash occasionally, but it's no more or less frequent than a similarly complicated AE comp on my system.
liven2
Apr 6, 01:58 PM
No matter what Apple does lately or how much they sell or how good the forecasts are for sales Apple Stock continues it quick downward slide. What the HELL!! I just do not understand it ... Specially while Google stock continues to climb at an incredible pace week, after week, after week.. :confused::confused::mad:
coolbreeze
Apr 7, 11:24 PM
I'll pile on here.
I hate Best Buy.
I miss Circuit City.
I wish there was a Frys in Utah.
There, I feel better. I hope this place suffers. I hate Best Buy.
I hate Best Buy.
I miss Circuit City.
I wish there was a Frys in Utah.
There, I feel better. I hope this place suffers. I hate Best Buy.
0racle
Mar 31, 04:31 PM
Oh, then I can take the Honeycomb source code and do whatever I want with it?
Oh, wait, I can't? Then how doesn't this make Android 'closed source'?
Sure, just buy a Honeycomb powered device. Until then Google has no legal requirement to let you have the GPL portions of source. As for the rest, it is licensed under an Apache License, which does not require Google release the source at all but does allow a user to modify and redistribute what they do have.
FOSS does not mean they have to put the source out in the open.
Oh, wait, I can't? Then how doesn't this make Android 'closed source'?
Sure, just buy a Honeycomb powered device. Until then Google has no legal requirement to let you have the GPL portions of source. As for the rest, it is licensed under an Apache License, which does not require Google release the source at all but does allow a user to modify and redistribute what they do have.
FOSS does not mean they have to put the source out in the open.
Evangelion
Jul 15, 10:32 AM
Power Supply at the top is REALLY stupid.
Why?
Because PC's have the PSU at the top, so it MUST be bad.
Why?
Because PC's have the PSU at the top, so it MUST be bad.
HecubusPro
Aug 27, 12:08 PM
But that doesn't make Nintendo (or Microsoft or Sony) suck. Fanboys just make themselves suck by being fanboys. :)
You are correct, sir.:D
You are correct, sir.:D
radiohead14
Mar 22, 02:59 PM
We are still missing an 8" Galaxy Tab to complete the 7", 9", and 10" line of tablets.
7", 8.9", 10" :)
i'm looking forward to reviews of that 10" samsung galaxy tab. the hardware seems sleeker than the original design they previously introduced. i hope it still has dual stereo speakers on both sides. i'm guessing that they reduced down from 8mp to 3mp camera due to the price matching and not because it's thinner, since phones can easily fit 8mp cams in their slim forms. i also hope that they don't mess it up with that touchwiz interface, as far as updating the os. at this stage of honeycomb, you'd figure that google will be rolling quite a few updates to it. although, engadget reported that there will be versions that will come vanilla.
7", 8.9", 10" :)
i'm looking forward to reviews of that 10" samsung galaxy tab. the hardware seems sleeker than the original design they previously introduced. i hope it still has dual stereo speakers on both sides. i'm guessing that they reduced down from 8mp to 3mp camera due to the price matching and not because it's thinner, since phones can easily fit 8mp cams in their slim forms. i also hope that they don't mess it up with that touchwiz interface, as far as updating the os. at this stage of honeycomb, you'd figure that google will be rolling quite a few updates to it. although, engadget reported that there will be versions that will come vanilla.
daver969
Sep 13, 12:10 PM
Yes, that's true.
It's also true that most of the time, most people aren't even maxing out ONE core never mind eight.
And when they do, their program won't get any faster unless it's multithreaded and able to run on multiple cores at once.
I'm underutilizing my cpu nearly all of the time, but that's irrelevant-what really matters to me is that fraction of the time when I *am* asking it to do 4 things at once, and I want it do them at the same speed that each could be done individually.
It's also true that most of the time, most people aren't even maxing out ONE core never mind eight.
And when they do, their program won't get any faster unless it's multithreaded and able to run on multiple cores at once.
I'm underutilizing my cpu nearly all of the time, but that's irrelevant-what really matters to me is that fraction of the time when I *am* asking it to do 4 things at once, and I want it do them at the same speed that each could be done individually.
![megan fox thumb double. 411mania.com: Movies - [Gossip] Megan Fox#39;s Thumb Double Has Hot Body Too](http://www.411mania.com/siteimages/4mv4gc1e_43962.jpg "411mania.com: Movies - [Gossip] Megan Fox#39;s Thumb Double Has Hot Body Too")
moebius
Mar 22, 08:36 PM
Probably someone mentioned before, but "a tablet for professionals" named PLAYbook?
I smell an identity crisis.
I smell an identity crisis.
LethalWolfe
Apr 10, 08:30 PM
When this hits it's going to piss a lot of people off.
Or make a lot of people happy. Either way everyone's going to be paying attention.
Lethal
Or make a lot of people happy. Either way everyone's going to be paying attention.
Lethal
Chris Bangle
Aug 11, 10:14 AM
We always have "next tuesday"
Boomchukalaka
Apr 6, 03:15 PM
YEP...over 100,000 people bought a Xoom...and clearly half of them will be on this forum telling everybody how much better it is than the iPad...;)
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.
Scottsdale
Apr 6, 11:59 AM
It would be about as fast. The IGP is 150MHz slower though so graphics wise it would be slightly slower. chrmjenkins explained some smaller details but in terms of performance, i7-2649M should be similar to i5-2520M.
Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but the Windows numbers don't correspond to OS X numbers.
Are you smoking something? Sure the IGP used in SB 13" MBP might get some fudged numbers by those who report for Apple, but you think the ULV SB IGP is going to even compare to the 320m on any level??? Huh? You are far smarter than that.
A lot of people using the 13" MBP in comparison when there are almost no similaries.
I don't believe a ULV CPU gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe this CPU in the story gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe Apple is dumb enough to ruin the MBA brand AGAIN with Intel's IGP at this time. I don't believe that what Apple does in the 13" MBP has any correlation with the MBA because the IGP is different. I believe when Apple and Nvidia said Apple will use the Nvidia chipset and GPU for a long time they were specifically citing the MBA, as it make no sense for the MBA to be so challenged as to get such an inferior design leading to tragic real world results.
In 2012 the MBA will get an update when it actually makes sense. People waiting for a ULV SB chip in the 13" MBA will be waiting a long time. People waiting or expecting SB IGP to even compare in ULV variants will be waiting forever as they cannot match the Nvidia offering with the underclocked IGP.
This story is ridiculous as written.
Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but the Windows numbers don't correspond to OS X numbers.
Are you smoking something? Sure the IGP used in SB 13" MBP might get some fudged numbers by those who report for Apple, but you think the ULV SB IGP is going to even compare to the 320m on any level??? Huh? You are far smarter than that.
A lot of people using the 13" MBP in comparison when there are almost no similaries.
I don't believe a ULV CPU gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe this CPU in the story gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe Apple is dumb enough to ruin the MBA brand AGAIN with Intel's IGP at this time. I don't believe that what Apple does in the 13" MBP has any correlation with the MBA because the IGP is different. I believe when Apple and Nvidia said Apple will use the Nvidia chipset and GPU for a long time they were specifically citing the MBA, as it make no sense for the MBA to be so challenged as to get such an inferior design leading to tragic real world results.
In 2012 the MBA will get an update when it actually makes sense. People waiting for a ULV SB chip in the 13" MBA will be waiting a long time. People waiting or expecting SB IGP to even compare in ULV variants will be waiting forever as they cannot match the Nvidia offering with the underclocked IGP.
This story is ridiculous as written.
Popeye206
Apr 19, 02:10 PM
Is that your vetted legal opinion?
We have a lot of couch lawyers in this group. :rolleyes:
We have a lot of couch lawyers in this group. :rolleyes:
videomaven
Apr 6, 06:08 AM
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?
There are many ways of delivering content other than BluRay. But if one insists, there is a rudimentary BluRay output currently in FCP. Or burn with Toast. Or author in anything from Adobe Encore to high-end PC-based BluRay authoring systems.
While I accept that you are not acting the troll, you do need to learn a bit more about the video/film world.
There are many ways of delivering content other than BluRay. But if one insists, there is a rudimentary BluRay output currently in FCP. Or burn with Toast. Or author in anything from Adobe Encore to high-end PC-based BluRay authoring systems.
While I accept that you are not acting the troll, you do need to learn a bit more about the video/film world.
khollister
Mar 22, 01:37 PM
Yeah a 50% smaller screen for the same price and less battery life is certainly going to crush the iPad2.
Plus RIM's usually obtuse software - I hate my company BlackBerry
Plus RIM's usually obtuse software - I hate my company BlackBerry
DesmoPilot
Aug 5, 02:13 AM
i thought this game was vaporware
November, 2, 2010.
November, 2, 2010.
Hellhammer
Apr 9, 01:29 AM
TDP != Max power draw
It's not. See my earlier post in this thread. Maximum power dissipation is usually 20-30% more.
It's not. See my earlier post in this thread. Maximum power dissipation is usually 20-30% more.