rdowns
Apr 27, 02:10 PM
OK, let's move onto Obama's grades. When Obama caves and releases those, citing more important issues we need to deal with, the press will then go after his professors and classmates. What else will the wingnuts ask for?
NebulaClash
Apr 25, 01:39 PM
Ah, the perfect storm! A (probable) bug that does not clip the data the way Google does it, a story that gets reported months ago and then it forgotten, a new story that appears and blows it way out of proportion, news articles that imply Apple is SPYING ON YOU (even though Apple does not get this information), and lots of ignorance spewed all over the Web.
Natually this leads to stupid lawsuits. This is America, dammit!
*sigh* This is turning into another Antennagate, misinformation and all. Steve is going to have to do more than that email to get people to shut up about what is a very small issue that is being exploded into a very large misinformation campaign.
Natually this leads to stupid lawsuits. This is America, dammit!
*sigh* This is turning into another Antennagate, misinformation and all. Steve is going to have to do more than that email to get people to shut up about what is a very small issue that is being exploded into a very large misinformation campaign.
Cruzer442
Apr 11, 11:52 AM
My 3Gs contract ends in June and Apple will be pushing it's luck for me to go half a year without me being tempted to jump platforms instead of waiting for the iPhone 5.
I'm in this boat to. I'm noticing my battery life is deteriorating also - never owned an iPhone this long. Also my GF has Verison Droid that just kicks my ass; better reception, faster, cool apps -e.g. voice to SMS. I can wait until July but late fall? IDK.
I'm in this boat to. I'm noticing my battery life is deteriorating also - never owned an iPhone this long. Also my GF has Verison Droid that just kicks my ass; better reception, faster, cool apps -e.g. voice to SMS. I can wait until July but late fall? IDK.
Multimedia
Aug 18, 09:13 PM
From the time the Apple logo is displayed. There is a pause before that starts, I'd say only 10 seconds or so.So You are saying 10 seconds from OFF to the Grey Apple then 5 more seconds to the desktop? With 3 GB of New Egg + 2GB RAM? That's still very fast. Quad G5 is almost as fast as that though.
shamino
Jul 20, 09:32 AM
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
Actually, this is well documented.
There are serious electrical and physical problems with jacking up clock speeds much further than they are now. Intel managed to push their chips to 3.4GHz, but the power consumed was tremendous.
When you can't ramp up the clock speed, your next best alternative is to go for as much parallelism as you can - increase the number of instructions you can execute in a single clock.
Chip makers achieve this in a wide variety of ways, including multiple CPU packages on a motherboard, multiple cores per CPU package, multiple threads per core, and multiple functional units per thread.
And yes, a single CPU at 3GHz can easily consume more power than two CPUs (or two cores) at 1.5GHz.
As for your theoretical 24GHz processor, such a thing is simply not possible with today's technology. (Well, there were some university experiments that hit insanely fast speeds, but don't expect commercial products any time soon.) Given the heat/power curves of today's chips, I wouldn't want to think about the cooling requirements of a 24GHz chip if you could somehow manage to build one.
Of course, breakthroughs do happen, and higher clock speeds might become practical in the future. But multi-core tech isn't going away - we'll simply end up with multiple cores at higher clock speeds.
Actually, this is well documented.
There are serious electrical and physical problems with jacking up clock speeds much further than they are now. Intel managed to push their chips to 3.4GHz, but the power consumed was tremendous.
When you can't ramp up the clock speed, your next best alternative is to go for as much parallelism as you can - increase the number of instructions you can execute in a single clock.
Chip makers achieve this in a wide variety of ways, including multiple CPU packages on a motherboard, multiple cores per CPU package, multiple threads per core, and multiple functional units per thread.
And yes, a single CPU at 3GHz can easily consume more power than two CPUs (or two cores) at 1.5GHz.
As for your theoretical 24GHz processor, such a thing is simply not possible with today's technology. (Well, there were some university experiments that hit insanely fast speeds, but don't expect commercial products any time soon.) Given the heat/power curves of today's chips, I wouldn't want to think about the cooling requirements of a 24GHz chip if you could somehow manage to build one.
Of course, breakthroughs do happen, and higher clock speeds might become practical in the future. But multi-core tech isn't going away - we'll simply end up with multiple cores at higher clock speeds.
SkyStudios
Apr 25, 04:41 PM
|
dark londe hair with
dark londe hair with
short londe hair with
dirty londe hair highlights.
pictures of londe hair with
dark londe hair with
for – strawberry blonde,
ashlee simpson red hair
Tyra Banks hair is chestnut in
londe hair highlights
is that strawberry blonde?
londe hair with lowlights
a short strawberry blonde.
FreeState
Feb 28, 08:34 PM
Now you've stopped stating opinions and walked into fact territory.
CITATION NEEDED!
Has anyone ever been truly 'cured' of homosexuality? You need to produce empirical evidence. Notably brain scans showing the arousal of a homosexual to people of his same sex before and after this 'treatment.'
If you can produce that evidence, I will be satisfied that homosexuality is a treatable condition. Until then, I'm just assuming that you're stating dogma as fact to make reprehensible claims.
My guess is "untreatable" means no one has been cured.
However medical science does not view sexual orientation as needing any treatment, its not an illness.
CITATION NEEDED!
Has anyone ever been truly 'cured' of homosexuality? You need to produce empirical evidence. Notably brain scans showing the arousal of a homosexual to people of his same sex before and after this 'treatment.'
If you can produce that evidence, I will be satisfied that homosexuality is a treatable condition. Until then, I'm just assuming that you're stating dogma as fact to make reprehensible claims.
My guess is "untreatable" means no one has been cured.
However medical science does not view sexual orientation as needing any treatment, its not an illness.
longofest
Aug 7, 03:33 PM
Hey nice to see osx will have system restore =D
heh... they give MS so much crap for photocopying, but if anything, this is more or less taking a page out of MS's book with System Restore. Granted, it looks like it will be better, but still, MS had this kind of thing first.
Not trolling, just pointing it out :)
*cough* TOP SECRET *cough* :rolleyes:
It would definitely appear as though rumors of a re-vamped Finder could have some merit...
heh... they give MS so much crap for photocopying, but if anything, this is more or less taking a page out of MS's book with System Restore. Granted, it looks like it will be better, but still, MS had this kind of thing first.
Not trolling, just pointing it out :)
*cough* TOP SECRET *cough* :rolleyes:
It would definitely appear as though rumors of a re-vamped Finder could have some merit...
ChrisA
Jul 20, 11:00 AM
.... Introduction of world's first commercial 8-core system.
Not quite the first. Sun has been shipping a commercial 8-core systems for about a year now. The T2000 has all 8 cores on one chip but each core also does four-way hyper threading so they claim 32 hardware threads. The price for an 8-core T1000 is about $8K. A system with 8 cores and 8GB RAM burns about 250W
Of course it does not run OS X but Gnome on Solaris has a very OS X -like "feel" to it.
It's a lot like a Mac Pro because Sun like Apple builds both the hardware and the OS and the machine ships with many of the same applications Both are unix based with a pretty point and click window system on top. Sun is also tranitioning to X86 but they are going much slower. So far only Sun's low-end machines have moved to AMD's Operon. All the high end stuff is still SPARC.
Not quite the first. Sun has been shipping a commercial 8-core systems for about a year now. The T2000 has all 8 cores on one chip but each core also does four-way hyper threading so they claim 32 hardware threads. The price for an 8-core T1000 is about $8K. A system with 8 cores and 8GB RAM burns about 250W
Of course it does not run OS X but Gnome on Solaris has a very OS X -like "feel" to it.
It's a lot like a Mac Pro because Sun like Apple builds both the hardware and the OS and the machine ships with many of the same applications Both are unix based with a pretty point and click window system on top. Sun is also tranitioning to X86 but they are going much slower. So far only Sun's low-end machines have moved to AMD's Operon. All the high end stuff is still SPARC.
fivepoint
Apr 27, 04:19 PM
It'd be fascinating to see how much people cared about 'layers' if the documents in question related to Bush's National Guard deployment or something similar. ;) Haha, no bias here boys!
The difference between me and you is that I'd want an explanation in either account. ;)
The difference between me and you is that I'd want an explanation in either account. ;)
thetexan
Apr 27, 08:46 AM
Didn't Google get in trouble for tagging SSIDs of hotspots when running their streetview vans through town? How is this any different, besides the fact you're the van instead of Google?
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.
rickvanr
Apr 10, 09:21 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Wayne Gretzky.
Wayne Gretzky.
michaelz
Mar 25, 11:06 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8C148)
In another news: iPad 3 is released in Fall 2011.
Yes, ipad3 will run os x lion! MBA will have a touch screen!!
In another news: iPad 3 is released in Fall 2011.
Yes, ipad3 will run os x lion! MBA will have a touch screen!!
milo
Jul 14, 03:04 PM
Power Supply at the top is REALLY stupid.
Why?
Why?
DCJ001
Mar 26, 07:57 PM
im using snow leopard, will all my documents and apps gone if i upgrade to lion ?
PowerPC (Rosetta) emulation is no longer offered. That means if you have any PowerPC applications they won't be able to run in Mac OS X Lion. You can determine if you are still running PowerPC applications by going into Applications -> Utilities -> System Profiler -> Applications and viewing "By Kind". This will show you which applications you have that are running under PowerPC. Rosetta had already become an optional install in Snow Leopard, and it appears Apple will be removing support for it entirely in Lion.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1104601
PowerPC (Rosetta) emulation is no longer offered. That means if you have any PowerPC applications they won't be able to run in Mac OS X Lion. You can determine if you are still running PowerPC applications by going into Applications -> Utilities -> System Profiler -> Applications and viewing "By Kind". This will show you which applications you have that are running under PowerPC. Rosetta had already become an optional install in Snow Leopard, and it appears Apple will be removing support for it entirely in Lion.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1104601
Killyp
Aug 7, 05:04 AM
Now now Leoff, no need to be so harsh :)
I think he has a point though. There is no way that you could sue apple based on this. Apple released the Mac, and they call it the Mac now (not the Macintosh). There is a company (I can't remember who) that makes plastic coats called Macs, and yet you don't see those two sueing each other.
If apple did release the MacPro, which seems highly likely, then what is going to be the negative effect on your business? if anything, it will bring in more business as more people will be typing mac-pro.com into their browsers.
I think he has a point though. There is no way that you could sue apple based on this. Apple released the Mac, and they call it the Mac now (not the Macintosh). There is a company (I can't remember who) that makes plastic coats called Macs, and yet you don't see those two sueing each other.
If apple did release the MacPro, which seems highly likely, then what is going to be the negative effect on your business? if anything, it will bring in more business as more people will be typing mac-pro.com into their browsers.
emotion
Jul 20, 08:32 AM
I have a question.
If Kentsfield is a relation of the Conroe part (ie. Core 2 Duo) then will it be capable of being configured in a pair to create a "octo" core machine?
Surely that will require a Xeon class processor (like a quad version of the Woodcrest)?
edit: quad version of Woodcrest is Clovertown.
If Kentsfield is a relation of the Conroe part (ie. Core 2 Duo) then will it be capable of being configured in a pair to create a "octo" core machine?
Surely that will require a Xeon class processor (like a quad version of the Woodcrest)?
edit: quad version of Woodcrest is Clovertown.
Silentwave
Jul 14, 04:54 PM
ONLY DDR2-667?!? :confused:
Come on Apple, you'd BETTER use DDR2-800 or I'll be pissed! :mad:
Actually I'm surprised Aidenshaw didn't pick up on this.
The specs provided are
CLEARLY FAKE!
You'd think they'd at least get the RAM right.
Woodcrest requires the use of FB-DIMM (fully-buffered DIMM) RAM, dual channel, available at 533 or 667mhz speeds. ECC built in. Though technically this is using DDR2 chips, it is referenced as a distinct type, including in Intel's publications. It does not use plain DDR like the low end spec posted in the article (and will transition to DDR3 as those become available).
(edit: toned down the sizes, they were hurting my eyes :) )
Come on Apple, you'd BETTER use DDR2-800 or I'll be pissed! :mad:
Actually I'm surprised Aidenshaw didn't pick up on this.
The specs provided are
CLEARLY FAKE!
You'd think they'd at least get the RAM right.
Woodcrest requires the use of FB-DIMM (fully-buffered DIMM) RAM, dual channel, available at 533 or 667mhz speeds. ECC built in. Though technically this is using DDR2 chips, it is referenced as a distinct type, including in Intel's publications. It does not use plain DDR like the low end spec posted in the article (and will transition to DDR3 as those become available).
(edit: toned down the sizes, they were hurting my eyes :) )
Super Dave
Aug 7, 04:33 PM
I dont think the "Top Secret" stuff is really top secret. I think Apple needs some more time to develope a few things before releasing them out into the public. No reason to release buggy apps.
Remember, WWDC was pushed back this year. THey aren't done with Leopard just yet.
They certainly aren't done, but they're announcing it within the same length time frame as they did with Tiger if I recall.
I actually believed him on the "Top Secret" stuff. Every vista build changes, so it's good to not let too much out of the bag until Vista is either interface frozen or released.
David :cool:
Remember, WWDC was pushed back this year. THey aren't done with Leopard just yet.
They certainly aren't done, but they're announcing it within the same length time frame as they did with Tiger if I recall.
I actually believed him on the "Top Secret" stuff. Every vista build changes, so it's good to not let too much out of the bag until Vista is either interface frozen or released.
David :cool:
heisetax
Jul 14, 08:24 PM
Doh! Well, again IMHO, it is my preference to have only one optical drive built in. I could always add an external later.
Why do the rest of us have to settle for your preference?
I know people that have their systems running that could get by with a 5-10 GB hard drive. Does that mean that we should feel that all systems should only have a 5-10 GB hard drive, maybe a CD drive & since we all will have the same small needs a floppy drive. A DVD writer could make a complete backup in most ccases. Why would we need one of them. So why have more than one external 5 1/4" slot.
I may only run probrams that I can download on the internet, why then even one external drive slot?
Sounds a little far out. But what is really far out? Everybody has different needs & wants. Many Windows systems have the ability to have at least 4 internally mounted external 5 1/4" drives 2-4 or more 3.5" external drives, several internal 3.5" drives, 10-in-1 flash card reader/writers & many more things. My old Mac Clones had space for 4 5 1/4" external & 2 3 1/2" external drives, with either 2 or 4 internal 3.5" drives.
There are people that need to run many different drives at once. They don't all want to have more external drives with all of those many, many cords than they absolutely have to. Right now I have 3 external drives hooked to my 17" PowerBook. Then there is usually a flash drive or 2 hook up to this system.
Remember that everyone does their computing different. That means that only a certain group would be happy with what you think is all that needs to be in a system. Others will think that you have too much.
My wife & me each have MDD PowerMac G4's for our desktop units. They both have DVD burne & CD burner drives. I miss the other slots that I have on myy Clones. I may have up to 6 internal 3.5" drives mounted. Usually a couple of SCSI drives, a couple PATA drives, & a couple SATA drives.s I still have 3-6 drives attached externally plus a NAS drive. Most external drives are FW800, with a couple FW400 drives & a 3 CF drives tower by Lexar.
What is the correct amount of drives? To me it is whatever it takes to properly get your computer job down. So to you, it will always be, why more than 1 internal 5 1/4" drive.
Bill the TaxMan
Why do the rest of us have to settle for your preference?
I know people that have their systems running that could get by with a 5-10 GB hard drive. Does that mean that we should feel that all systems should only have a 5-10 GB hard drive, maybe a CD drive & since we all will have the same small needs a floppy drive. A DVD writer could make a complete backup in most ccases. Why would we need one of them. So why have more than one external 5 1/4" slot.
I may only run probrams that I can download on the internet, why then even one external drive slot?
Sounds a little far out. But what is really far out? Everybody has different needs & wants. Many Windows systems have the ability to have at least 4 internally mounted external 5 1/4" drives 2-4 or more 3.5" external drives, several internal 3.5" drives, 10-in-1 flash card reader/writers & many more things. My old Mac Clones had space for 4 5 1/4" external & 2 3 1/2" external drives, with either 2 or 4 internal 3.5" drives.
There are people that need to run many different drives at once. They don't all want to have more external drives with all of those many, many cords than they absolutely have to. Right now I have 3 external drives hooked to my 17" PowerBook. Then there is usually a flash drive or 2 hook up to this system.
Remember that everyone does their computing different. That means that only a certain group would be happy with what you think is all that needs to be in a system. Others will think that you have too much.
My wife & me each have MDD PowerMac G4's for our desktop units. They both have DVD burne & CD burner drives. I miss the other slots that I have on myy Clones. I may have up to 6 internal 3.5" drives mounted. Usually a couple of SCSI drives, a couple PATA drives, & a couple SATA drives.s I still have 3-6 drives attached externally plus a NAS drive. Most external drives are FW800, with a couple FW400 drives & a 3 CF drives tower by Lexar.
What is the correct amount of drives? To me it is whatever it takes to properly get your computer job down. So to you, it will always be, why more than 1 internal 5 1/4" drive.
Bill the TaxMan
iGary
Aug 5, 05:15 PM
iMac - No.
iPod - No.
MacBook - No.
MacBook Pro - No.
MacPro - Yes.
Xserve - Yes.
Displays - Yes.
Leopard Preview - Yes.
iPhone - Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
iPod - No.
MacBook - No.
MacBook Pro - No.
MacPro - Yes.
Xserve - Yes.
Displays - Yes.
Leopard Preview - Yes.
iPhone - Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 6, 11:12 AM
I still don't think this means new MacBook Airs in June. Can anyone really see Apple releasing new hardware before Lion is released?
I can they have before. Drop in OS kits.
I can they have before. Drop in OS kits.
Vegasman
Apr 27, 09:27 AM
For those of us who regularly travel for work between locations but stay away for more than a week, it will be a hit in performance. I just hope there is a setting that allows a larger data file to be kept.
Wow. Was your iPhone really THAT slow the first time you used it. I don't recall those complaints hitting the news (yet).
Wow. Was your iPhone really THAT slow the first time you used it. I don't recall those complaints hitting the news (yet).