shigzeo
Aug 6, 09:04 AM
2 gig shuffle, same head amp out, same package, just 2 gigs and certainty that apple won't replace it with nano... or in september, october, november when the new nano comes out, let it have the same or upgraded shuffle head amp out.
for me, no new mac till next year at earliest so... bother it all, i will share in all of my macrumors' mates excitement!
for me, no new mac till next year at earliest so... bother it all, i will share in all of my macrumors' mates excitement!
bigbossbmb
Aug 18, 04:21 PM
i know that the latest version of maya takes advantage of more than two cores on its own. i would hope that compressor does, but i'm not sure.
VanNess
Aug 7, 04:24 PM
By the way, I don't want to say Leopard is a disappointment compared to Vista, obviously we were not shown Leopard in action to any great degree yet. But the keynote (at least the Leopard part) was definitely a disappointment. It hardly scratched the surface of just about everything that everybody was most interested in/concerned about.
http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/CryBaby2.gif
http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/CryBaby2.gif
savar
Sep 13, 02:35 PM
NOT TRUE....The Quad core G5 people are in an uproar because Logic Pro only uses 2 cores on the G5....they updated Logic Pro so it uses 4 cores, but the G5 Quad still only uses 2 cores....there are also photoshop actions that are NOT multi core aware so will only run on one core.....Hopefully 10.5 will make all this irrelevant.
You totally missed my point. Even if an application uses only one thread at all times, that application is still a separate process from all of the other processes you have running. At any given time you'll have at least 30 something processes, even when no user-land applications are running. OS X will spread out those processes to try to utilize all the cores as much as possible.
In reality, there are probably not too many non-Apple applications which routinely use 8 threads or more. In the near future I expect all applications to use at least 2-3 threads, even the most simple ones.
You totally missed my point. Even if an application uses only one thread at all times, that application is still a separate process from all of the other processes you have running. At any given time you'll have at least 30 something processes, even when no user-land applications are running. OS X will spread out those processes to try to utilize all the cores as much as possible.
In reality, there are probably not too many non-Apple applications which routinely use 8 threads or more. In the near future I expect all applications to use at least 2-3 threads, even the most simple ones.
iGary
Aug 15, 11:39 AM
I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?
Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.
Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.
oregonmac
Nov 29, 01:11 PM
see http://www.tunecore.com/
Universal is simply increasing the rate of their own demise. And why do they think artists find them necessary?
Universal is simply increasing the rate of their own demise. And why do they think artists find them necessary?
digitalbiker
Aug 25, 03:31 PM
Over the years I have bought a lot of computers for my business from a lot of different venders. To be honest Apple hardware support has never impressed me! :mad: I have actually had much better support from Dell than from Apple.
As far as .Mac goes it is one of the most poorly supported systems I have ever used in my life. They have a lousey limited faq sheet, common problems, email support is pitiful, and they don't take voice support. .Mac is a joke for $100.00 a year.
In general Apple's entire help system in OS X sucks. Searchs within the context of an application gives you all kinds of crap from every application on the system. Also there is no depth to the system. If your problem isn't the most elementary problem possible (99% of which you can figure out yourself) then it won't be in any of the help files.
As far as .Mac goes it is one of the most poorly supported systems I have ever used in my life. They have a lousey limited faq sheet, common problems, email support is pitiful, and they don't take voice support. .Mac is a joke for $100.00 a year.
In general Apple's entire help system in OS X sucks. Searchs within the context of an application gives you all kinds of crap from every application on the system. Also there is no depth to the system. If your problem isn't the most elementary problem possible (99% of which you can figure out yourself) then it won't be in any of the help files.
louden
Aug 27, 06:36 PM
IF new MBPs are announced tomorrow
and
IF people who had ordered new MBPs see their ship dates slip
Then wouldn't that signal that prices won't change for the various models from existing prices AND that we shouldn't assume drastic shell changes? Sure they can give us easy access and a magnetic lid, but no options on a glossy screen and no black anodized aluminum.
If I were Apple, I'd hold off on the black aluminum for a few months to get a few of us suckers to buy two of the damn things... Malibu Stacy Marketing 101.
and
IF people who had ordered new MBPs see their ship dates slip
Then wouldn't that signal that prices won't change for the various models from existing prices AND that we shouldn't assume drastic shell changes? Sure they can give us easy access and a magnetic lid, but no options on a glossy screen and no black anodized aluminum.
If I were Apple, I'd hold off on the black aluminum for a few months to get a few of us suckers to buy two of the damn things... Malibu Stacy Marketing 101.
NebulaClash
Apr 27, 08:11 AM
5. Can Apple locate me based on my geo-tagged Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data?
No. This data is sent to Apple in an anonymous and encrypted form. Apple cannot identify the source of this data.
So while it is true that the iPhone does note Wi-Fi locations in your general area, and thus it does "track" you in that sense, it is only on your Mac that this information can actually track you. The information sent to Apple is anonymized, and thus not trackable to you.
Apple is NOT tracking you. Your phone creates a database that could track you IF SOMEONE HAS ACCESS TO YOUR MAC. But if that happens, they already know everything there is to know about you anyway and have no need to check your Wi-Fi database. They've got your Address Book info, your bank site links and cookies, your email, your personal letters, etc.
The only reason to slam Apple is for not culling this local database. Now they will. But Apple was NEVER tracking you. Apple is not lying when they say that.
No. This data is sent to Apple in an anonymous and encrypted form. Apple cannot identify the source of this data.
So while it is true that the iPhone does note Wi-Fi locations in your general area, and thus it does "track" you in that sense, it is only on your Mac that this information can actually track you. The information sent to Apple is anonymized, and thus not trackable to you.
Apple is NOT tracking you. Your phone creates a database that could track you IF SOMEONE HAS ACCESS TO YOUR MAC. But if that happens, they already know everything there is to know about you anyway and have no need to check your Wi-Fi database. They've got your Address Book info, your bank site links and cookies, your email, your personal letters, etc.
The only reason to slam Apple is for not culling this local database. Now they will. But Apple was NEVER tracking you. Apple is not lying when they say that.
littleman23408
Nov 30, 03:15 PM
Anyone have any tips to complete the top gear special challenge? I can't manage to get around all those bus'
peeInMyPantz
Jul 28, 12:50 AM
I'm hoping for Merom news at WWDC but Fujitsu announced Merom laptops that will only be available sometime in Q4 I hope the same isn't true for the MBP.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/27/fujitsu-to-add-core-2-duo-options-to-lifebook-n6400-series/
at least they made an announcement.
do you think apple will try to release core 2 duo notebooks as soon as possible, before Leopard? so that once Leopard is released, more users have to buy it separately. the longer the wait, chances are there are less users that will switch from their current MBP to the new MBP knowing that Leopard's release date is soon.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/27/fujitsu-to-add-core-2-duo-options-to-lifebook-n6400-series/
at least they made an announcement.
do you think apple will try to release core 2 duo notebooks as soon as possible, before Leopard? so that once Leopard is released, more users have to buy it separately. the longer the wait, chances are there are less users that will switch from their current MBP to the new MBP knowing that Leopard's release date is soon.
milo
Jul 14, 03:22 PM
A new Mac Pro for $1799? Not bad people!!!! In essence Apple is cutting the price of the current Dual Core 2 GHz G5 PowerMac by $200..... The same price as it is on the EDU store.
Amen to that. Especially when you look at the dell site and see that their tower with that same CPU costs about $2400.
Amen to that. Especially when you look at the dell site and see that their tower with that same CPU costs about $2400.
j26
Nov 29, 06:26 AM
My initial reservations about this story (the Zune/Universal payment) was much like eveybody's elses on these forums - very bad for us and screw 'em. But now that I've had time to think it through I actually think it's a fantastic idea.
Fantastic for the consumer and the artist, and potentially catastrophic for Universal Music.
Allow me to explain! Somebody buys a Zune or iPod that has had the 'Universal Tax' applied to it and then fills it with 30GB of stolen Universal music. It goes to court and the 'Pirate' successfully argues that he/she has already compensated UMG by buying the iPod/Zune. The judge agrees and piracy of Universal music becomes legal so long as it's for the 'UMG taxed' iPod or Zune. UMG collapses overnight and the artists get to release music on their terms and get more of the money that they deserve, not the faceless corporations and shareholders.
Why is this good for us? Because every entertainment company would become very wary of labelling us all 'pirates' and might actually realise that digital distribution at a fair price is their future.
D'oh somebody has already written something to this effect whilst I was typing!!
But do you really think a court will decide that way. Not likely, especially if it's a judge from the wealth maximisation school of thought.
Fantastic for the consumer and the artist, and potentially catastrophic for Universal Music.
Allow me to explain! Somebody buys a Zune or iPod that has had the 'Universal Tax' applied to it and then fills it with 30GB of stolen Universal music. It goes to court and the 'Pirate' successfully argues that he/she has already compensated UMG by buying the iPod/Zune. The judge agrees and piracy of Universal music becomes legal so long as it's for the 'UMG taxed' iPod or Zune. UMG collapses overnight and the artists get to release music on their terms and get more of the money that they deserve, not the faceless corporations and shareholders.
Why is this good for us? Because every entertainment company would become very wary of labelling us all 'pirates' and might actually realise that digital distribution at a fair price is their future.
D'oh somebody has already written something to this effect whilst I was typing!!
But do you really think a court will decide that way. Not likely, especially if it's a judge from the wealth maximisation school of thought.
udontsurf9
Jun 23, 09:02 AM
got my call here in houston, tx. They said it'll be ready at 8:30 Thursday morning
Peace
Jul 27, 10:10 AM
Very, very true. You usually only get half the things you expect... the real gem is when you get something you didn't expect.
Like the 30th Anniversary Mac ;)
Like the 30th Anniversary Mac ;)
NoSmokingBandit
Sep 1, 12:40 PM
I'd rather have 1000 equally modeled cars, but when you are dealing with 1000 cars it has to be a touch decision to make. Even so, they wouldnt have to redo anything, just copy a higher res model into the resource server.
The premium cars sure are gorgeous though.
The premium cars sure are gorgeous though.
bibbz
Jun 9, 09:45 PM
Bibbz: I'm in the dfw area which radio shack do you work at? Would like to go through you for my next iPhone since know what's going on. I will be trading in my current 3gs.
I tried to send you a pm, I'm not really sure why I couldn't.
I tried to send you a pm, I'm not really sure why I couldn't.
quigleybc
Aug 11, 11:54 AM
Oh my god....this phone....sigh....this phone...
This is the new G5 Powerbook....so many rumors/front page stories....
it's tiresome...
yes, I want one....but I'm tired of the speculation.
This is the new G5 Powerbook....so many rumors/front page stories....
it's tiresome...
yes, I want one....but I'm tired of the speculation.
Multimedia
Jul 21, 12:20 PM
It really depends on your application.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
j_maddison
Jul 20, 11:53 AM
How fast do you want mail to go?
As fast as possible! Don't worry I do agree that e mail and browsing has very little to do with the processor speed, still you did ask the question! Now if only I could get a fibre link to my house without it costing a few hundred thousand Pounds a year hmm :rolleyes:
As fast as possible! Don't worry I do agree that e mail and browsing has very little to do with the processor speed, still you did ask the question! Now if only I could get a fibre link to my house without it costing a few hundred thousand Pounds a year hmm :rolleyes:
wmmk
Aug 16, 10:42 PM
Was there any doubt it wouldn't be a lot faster? I mean, I know it was already plenty fast, but come on...
Well, not all gigahertz are created equally, and not apps are universal.
Well, not all gigahertz are created equally, and not apps are universal.
ctachme
Jul 27, 10:50 AM
MBPs the end of august? I START school in the end of august.
ughghghghghghg
Me too. I'm just going to hang onto my aging iBook G4 until they come out. I really would kick myself if I bought a MacBook Pro now so close to them being updated. I'm just hoping I can order soon, and then they will arrive at the end of August... just in time for school. *crosses fingers*
ughghghghghghg
Me too. I'm just going to hang onto my aging iBook G4 until they come out. I really would kick myself if I bought a MacBook Pro now so close to them being updated. I'm just hoping I can order soon, and then they will arrive at the end of August... just in time for school. *crosses fingers*
Kabeyun
Mar 22, 01:03 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
...and last, at least as far as the spec war argument goes. You're grafting a computer-shopping mentality onto a tablet market, and people don't think of tablets as computers. People don't buy tablets based on specs, and the spec difference between current or impending offerings it not what will define the user experience.
...and last, at least as far as the spec war argument goes. You're grafting a computer-shopping mentality onto a tablet market, and people don't think of tablets as computers. People don't buy tablets based on specs, and the spec difference between current or impending offerings it not what will define the user experience.
Bakey
Apr 5, 06:09 PM
A very ignorant post. Especially if you value quality. I hardly call providing the best quality video "sucking money out of home consumers"
Or are you one of those that want to insist that streaming "hd" video is just as good as blu-ray. Because if you are - you shouldn't have even weighed in here.
No need to school you on the difference here though unless you come back and tell me you still think there's no difference.
+1... Maybe I should've snipped the quote, but I couldn't agree more! :)
Or are you one of those that want to insist that streaming "hd" video is just as good as blu-ray. Because if you are - you shouldn't have even weighed in here.
No need to school you on the difference here though unless you come back and tell me you still think there's no difference.
+1... Maybe I should've snipped the quote, but I couldn't agree more! :)
