xxBURT0Nxx
Apr 7, 09:54 AM
It's not false per say, at least not 100%. Of course, graphics in such systems are usually IGPs, but before the Core iX line of processors, anyone could license and build chipsets for these processors and include a different IGP than Intel did. Intel however refused to license this for the new processors, including the SB line and thus nVidia who was making chipsets could not produce an IGP for the new platform.
So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.
So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
I know about the whole nvidia/intel lawsuit, but to say that intel forced apple to use the IGP is not correct imo. Yes they may have said if you want to use integrated graphics, they must be our integrated graphics on sandy bridge, but obviously apple could still have chosen to use discrete graphics as they did in some of the macbook pros, however seeing them absent on the airs and the 13" mbp shows that apple didn't have enough space to include discrete on top of the new processors. I see what you are saying, but the op said intel made apple use their graphics in a machine that costs this much!?!? not true apple could have easily added amd graphics if they wanted to, however due to cost/design/whatever they use integrated graphics in their smaller laptops!
So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.
So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
I know about the whole nvidia/intel lawsuit, but to say that intel forced apple to use the IGP is not correct imo. Yes they may have said if you want to use integrated graphics, they must be our integrated graphics on sandy bridge, but obviously apple could still have chosen to use discrete graphics as they did in some of the macbook pros, however seeing them absent on the airs and the 13" mbp shows that apple didn't have enough space to include discrete on top of the new processors. I see what you are saying, but the op said intel made apple use their graphics in a machine that costs this much!?!? not true apple could have easily added amd graphics if they wanted to, however due to cost/design/whatever they use integrated graphics in their smaller laptops!
MacRumors
Aug 16, 10:33 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Barefeats provides (http://www.barefeats.com/quad06.html) benchmarks comparing the Quad 3GHz Mac Pro (Xeon) vs the Quad G5 2.5GHz Power Mac (G5). This represents the new top of the line vs the old top of the line Mac.
They provide benchmarks for both non-Universal and Universal applications between the Mac Pro 3GHz, Mac Pro 2.66GHz and PowerMac G5 Quad 2.5GHz.
The top-end Mac Pro performed well compared to the Quad G5 with both Photoshop CS2 and After Effects 7.0 despite running under Rosetta emulation on the Mac Pro. Universal upgrades to these applications should provide additional performance boosts.
Meanwhile, Universal applications iMovie HD 6, Final Cut Pro 5, FileMaker Pro 8.5 and Cinebench 9.5 generally showed substantial improvements even in the 2.66GHz Mac Pro vs the 2.5GHz PowerMac.
There's no doubt that both versions of the Mac Pro are faster than the G5 Quad-Core running Universal Binary apps like iMovie, Final Cut Pro, etc. As you can see from the four UB tests we ran in this session, the Mac Pro 2.66GHz was as much as 62% faster than the Quad-Core G5/2.5GHz. The Mac Pro 3.0GHz was as much as 85% faster.
Barefeats provides (http://www.barefeats.com/quad06.html) benchmarks comparing the Quad 3GHz Mac Pro (Xeon) vs the Quad G5 2.5GHz Power Mac (G5). This represents the new top of the line vs the old top of the line Mac.
They provide benchmarks for both non-Universal and Universal applications between the Mac Pro 3GHz, Mac Pro 2.66GHz and PowerMac G5 Quad 2.5GHz.
The top-end Mac Pro performed well compared to the Quad G5 with both Photoshop CS2 and After Effects 7.0 despite running under Rosetta emulation on the Mac Pro. Universal upgrades to these applications should provide additional performance boosts.
Meanwhile, Universal applications iMovie HD 6, Final Cut Pro 5, FileMaker Pro 8.5 and Cinebench 9.5 generally showed substantial improvements even in the 2.66GHz Mac Pro vs the 2.5GHz PowerMac.
There's no doubt that both versions of the Mac Pro are faster than the G5 Quad-Core running Universal Binary apps like iMovie, Final Cut Pro, etc. As you can see from the four UB tests we ran in this session, the Mac Pro 2.66GHz was as much as 62% faster than the Quad-Core G5/2.5GHz. The Mac Pro 3.0GHz was as much as 85% faster.
starnox
Aug 5, 04:58 PM
My bad :p Never trust random world clock websites ;)
Multimedia
Jul 21, 04:42 PM
Intel's Bensley platform was designed for Dempsey, Woodcrest, and Clovertown families of Xeon processors. So the system components like mobo and memory will remain the same. Any changes will be incremental.
Of course things like Blue Ray and 802.11n may not be offered in the next release but only in Rev 2. Or, they will be cheaper.Interesting. You know links where we can learn more about Bensley?I know you already have a quad-core PowerMac so it makes sense for you to wait .... unless SJ is able to tempt you come WWDC with promise of 2x performance etc. ... :D :DI don't think 2x performance would impress me enough. It's not so much the increase in "performance" as it is the number of cores I care about - definitly waiting for 8 then 16. And there's also the Leopard onboard factor I would like to wait for. And Santa Rosa in the MacBook Pro.
Of course things like Blue Ray and 802.11n may not be offered in the next release but only in Rev 2. Or, they will be cheaper.Interesting. You know links where we can learn more about Bensley?I know you already have a quad-core PowerMac so it makes sense for you to wait .... unless SJ is able to tempt you come WWDC with promise of 2x performance etc. ... :D :DI don't think 2x performance would impress me enough. It's not so much the increase in "performance" as it is the number of cores I care about - definitly waiting for 8 then 16. And there's also the Leopard onboard factor I would like to wait for. And Santa Rosa in the MacBook Pro.
zelet
Aug 25, 04:18 PM
I was planning to buy a .mac account for e-mail , blogs through iWeb, web pages etc. I am more aware now about it.
Don't get dotMac without some serious research. Their services are slow and they are a ton more expensive than comparable services elsewhere. Of course, the benefits are that its well integrated into OS X but you can do that with a little bit of work. YMMV
Don't get dotMac without some serious research. Their services are slow and they are a ton more expensive than comparable services elsewhere. Of course, the benefits are that its well integrated into OS X but you can do that with a little bit of work. YMMV
Optimus Frag
Apr 27, 09:11 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Iraqis are dying, Afghani are dying, Syrians are dying, American soldiers are dying, British soldiers are dying, Australian soldiers are dying, elderly around the world are losing medical services... And civvies and senators are busy complaining about a location log in an iPhone? There are some screwed up heads in this world!
Exactly. Some need to develop a sense of perspective.
Iraqis are dying, Afghani are dying, Syrians are dying, American soldiers are dying, British soldiers are dying, Australian soldiers are dying, elderly around the world are losing medical services... And civvies and senators are busy complaining about a location log in an iPhone? There are some screwed up heads in this world!
Exactly. Some need to develop a sense of perspective.
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 03:15 PM
There is a huge difference between an OS and a cellphone standard. Having two cellphone standards is like having two internets. You as a customer have no idea weather you use CDMA or GSM. I dont know about you, but I use my cell for talking end send/receive data. I dont give a rats ass whether this done through code division or time division...
Yes, but I do notice that my data transfers are about 5x faster on my EVDO phone than on my EDGE phone and I don't get nearly as many dropped calls when switching between towers like I did when I used T-Mobile and Cingular.
Yes, but I do notice that my data transfers are about 5x faster on my EVDO phone than on my EDGE phone and I don't get nearly as many dropped calls when switching between towers like I did when I used T-Mobile and Cingular.
Javik
Apr 7, 05:01 AM
I guess you have to do what you have to do on the road. Still a shame that you suffer running Photoshop, aperture, illustrator or anime studio pro, or edit HD video on a notebook, let alone an underpowered one. Both from a power and a screen aspect.
I don't discount the fact that there are road warriors who need an MBA or other portable for work. Whether that is an office suite and email or actual video/photo production or anything in between. But while some people, especially of the lighter use group, will choose the MBA over the MBP in a 15" or 17" form factor, or even the 13" MBP, for their needs, the point was that the MBA borders on a consumption machine because of its weight, access, and limits in power. You can do workhorse projects on it, but will still suffer the slow rendering time. An MBA is perfectly suited to the business traveler who needs all the office capabilities but no significant power.
You obviously have not used a MBA for real work before. It is more than capable for some people's needs, not capable for others. I've been able to run 100 track Logic files on the thing without the Air breaking a sweat. Before you run along blabbering things you don't know about: think.
I don't discount the fact that there are road warriors who need an MBA or other portable for work. Whether that is an office suite and email or actual video/photo production or anything in between. But while some people, especially of the lighter use group, will choose the MBA over the MBP in a 15" or 17" form factor, or even the 13" MBP, for their needs, the point was that the MBA borders on a consumption machine because of its weight, access, and limits in power. You can do workhorse projects on it, but will still suffer the slow rendering time. An MBA is perfectly suited to the business traveler who needs all the office capabilities but no significant power.
You obviously have not used a MBA for real work before. It is more than capable for some people's needs, not capable for others. I've been able to run 100 track Logic files on the thing without the Air breaking a sweat. Before you run along blabbering things you don't know about: think.
Multimedia
Aug 21, 01:25 AM
Mac Pros will need 64bit Leopard to achieve their full multi-core potential. Expect all Core 2 based Macs to hold value well through the next release cycle of OSX Leopard.
Apple is still selling G5's on the website for $3299! Until
Adobe gets out - and optimizes - universal binaries, Quad G5 will sell for more than Quad Xeon Mac Pros! :rolleyes:Quad G5 is only $2799 on the SAVE refurb page. Refurbs are the same as new with a new warranty. But I think that would be a poor choice compared to a Mac Pro. The Mac Pro is not cheaper because you have to add more expensive RAM. But it is faster overall and Rosetta Photoshop performance isn't bad. Quad G5 will also benefit from Leopard don't forget. It's not like Leopard is going to not be written to take advantage of the 64-bit G5 as well.
But I would not recomend a G5 Quad to anyone at this point. I'm pondering a Mac Pro purchase myself. But I'm going to try and hold out for a refurb or even see if I can wait for Clovertown. But I'm likely to be one of the first to snag a Mac Pro refurb when they hit the SAVE page in November-December. By then I may even be thinking about waiting for the January 9th SteveNote. Quad G5 is no slouch. But Mac Pro is faster overall.And I thought you were married to your quad last week ......While I may be married to my Quad G5, we're not exclusive and she likes a threesome with the younger faster models as much as I do too. :p
Apple is still selling G5's on the website for $3299! Until
Adobe gets out - and optimizes - universal binaries, Quad G5 will sell for more than Quad Xeon Mac Pros! :rolleyes:Quad G5 is only $2799 on the SAVE refurb page. Refurbs are the same as new with a new warranty. But I think that would be a poor choice compared to a Mac Pro. The Mac Pro is not cheaper because you have to add more expensive RAM. But it is faster overall and Rosetta Photoshop performance isn't bad. Quad G5 will also benefit from Leopard don't forget. It's not like Leopard is going to not be written to take advantage of the 64-bit G5 as well.
But I would not recomend a G5 Quad to anyone at this point. I'm pondering a Mac Pro purchase myself. But I'm going to try and hold out for a refurb or even see if I can wait for Clovertown. But I'm likely to be one of the first to snag a Mac Pro refurb when they hit the SAVE page in November-December. By then I may even be thinking about waiting for the January 9th SteveNote. Quad G5 is no slouch. But Mac Pro is faster overall.And I thought you were married to your quad last week ......While I may be married to my Quad G5, we're not exclusive and she likes a threesome with the younger faster models as much as I do too. :p
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.
parapup
Mar 31, 04:03 PM
Google/Android can't win in Gruber and his follower's minds. If they control to reduce UI variations - it's not OPEN anymore. If they don't control then there are complaints about carrier crapware. Either way Gruber and co. exist to move the goal posts to suit their cult. iOS has favorable numbers - numbers FTW!! Oh wait that's no longer true - numbers hardly matter!! Android has UI variances because of lack of Google control - BAAAD stuff! Google is putting control in place to promote more uniformity - GAAAWWD AWFUL BAIT and SWITCH!!
So nothing to see here, move along.
So nothing to see here, move along.
Maccus Aurelius
Sep 19, 12:14 PM
I'm finding it hilarious that you can put yourself into Stevie's reality distortion field even after the Intel switch. Maybe while Apple had PPC, you could have said that. But now that direct hardware comparisons can be made, don't you think it's stupid that sub-$1000 PC notebooks have better processors than the best Apple has to offer?
And yes, the MBP is a top-of-the-line laptop. Apart from 2'' thick behemoths, it was one of the fastest portables around, and it was priced accordingly. Now it's still priced as such, but times are moving, technology is advancing, and if you compare pound for pound, the MBP is behind.
I don't see too many laptops that are sub $1000 that offer Core 2 Duo at the moment. Alienware has one that costs just about that much. Dell's XPS is the only laptop line with C2D, which are generally more costly than the Macbook Pros, even the 17". At the very least, apple has already equipped some of their computers with 64-bit support where it would probably benefit the most. The Mac Pro will obviously be the most likely to see great benefits from it. The imac, too, will see more benefit. but seeing as how macbooks and macbook pros are just coming out of their hardware glitches, i think its better to iron out those issues before stuffing new chips into them.
And yes, the MBP is a top-of-the-line laptop. Apart from 2'' thick behemoths, it was one of the fastest portables around, and it was priced accordingly. Now it's still priced as such, but times are moving, technology is advancing, and if you compare pound for pound, the MBP is behind.
I don't see too many laptops that are sub $1000 that offer Core 2 Duo at the moment. Alienware has one that costs just about that much. Dell's XPS is the only laptop line with C2D, which are generally more costly than the Macbook Pros, even the 17". At the very least, apple has already equipped some of their computers with 64-bit support where it would probably benefit the most. The Mac Pro will obviously be the most likely to see great benefits from it. The imac, too, will see more benefit. but seeing as how macbooks and macbook pros are just coming out of their hardware glitches, i think its better to iron out those issues before stuffing new chips into them.
rovex
Mar 22, 02:51 PM
Keep telling yourself that. You'll sleep better at night.
Since it's true (I'm certain) you can enjoy living in a dump.
People like you don't get far in life, sorry to say.
If you can't spell "they're" correctly "you're" hardly a credible source.
Battery life is worse because of the specs. Considering that the iPad can play sufficiently high-bitrate videos, I don't see much value in reducing battery life to compete on the basis of specs.
Wrong. Battery life is worse because the size is considerably smaller.
Since it's true (I'm certain) you can enjoy living in a dump.
People like you don't get far in life, sorry to say.
If you can't spell "they're" correctly "you're" hardly a credible source.
Battery life is worse because of the specs. Considering that the iPad can play sufficiently high-bitrate videos, I don't see much value in reducing battery life to compete on the basis of specs.
Wrong. Battery life is worse because the size is considerably smaller.
Hellhammer
Apr 6, 10:20 AM
ULV CPUs (17W) will go to 11.6". The TDP of 320M is not known but 9400M has TDP of 12W so it is quite safe to assume that the TDP is similar to that. That means current 11.6" MBA has TDP of 22W (includes CPU, GPU, chipset) while SB 11.6" MBA would have a TDP of 21W (17W for the CPU and ~4W for the PCH).
13" will go with LV CPUs (25W). Again, currently it has 17W for the CPU and 12W for 320M. That's 29W. 25W CPU and ~4W for PCH gives you the same 29W.
11.6" - Core i5-2537M (option for Core i7-2657M)
13.3" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
13" will go with LV CPUs (25W). Again, currently it has 17W for the CPU and 12W for 320M. That's 29W. 25W CPU and ~4W for PCH gives you the same 29W.
11.6" - Core i5-2537M (option for Core i7-2657M)
13.3" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
Silentwave
Jul 14, 05:28 PM
All three chips produce the same performance at the same clockspeed. Cache size may make a difference, but the Conroe models starting at 2.4 GHz all have the large 4 MB cache. So a single 2.66 GHz Woodcrest will be substantially slower than a 2.93 GHz Conroe. Not that it matters; the 2.93 GHz Conroe is extremely overpriced and unlikely to be used in any Macintosh.
While I agree that the 2.93 Conroe is unlikely to make its way into the macs, I don't think the difference will be 'substantial.' The Woodcrest has a faster FSB, and most other variables are equal except clock speed. Based on the benchmarks on the various Conroe versions, I think that the 2.66 Woodcrest will offer performance only very slightly slower than Conroe 2.93.
I personally would expect 2.0GHz Conroe, 2.66 GHz Conroe, 2 x 2 GHz Woodcrest and 2 x 2.66 GHz Woodcrest for a wide range from cheap to maximum performance.
Just a nit, but IIRC isn't the codename for conroe based chips running at 2.4 and below with 2MB L2 caches Allendale? (there is a separate 2.4 with 4mb L2)
I'm still not sure whether Apple will go all woodcrest to get better prices on chips and RAM (FB-DIMM is exclusive to woodcrest in apple's potential lineup)but I would expect either 2x2GHz or 2x2.3GHz as a low end quad, and either a 2x2.66 or 2x3.0 for the high end. Perhaps the 3.0GHz will be a BTO option for the 2x2.66, like the 2.16 was a BTO originally on the 2.0 MBP.
"One more thing, you know we complained about not breaking 3GHz with Power-PC, so for our latest quad, we figured you'd all like to finally do that. So, you can order your top level 2.66 Xeon quad as a build to order with two of the 3.0GHz Xeon chips!"
While I agree that the 2.93 Conroe is unlikely to make its way into the macs, I don't think the difference will be 'substantial.' The Woodcrest has a faster FSB, and most other variables are equal except clock speed. Based on the benchmarks on the various Conroe versions, I think that the 2.66 Woodcrest will offer performance only very slightly slower than Conroe 2.93.
I personally would expect 2.0GHz Conroe, 2.66 GHz Conroe, 2 x 2 GHz Woodcrest and 2 x 2.66 GHz Woodcrest for a wide range from cheap to maximum performance.
Just a nit, but IIRC isn't the codename for conroe based chips running at 2.4 and below with 2MB L2 caches Allendale? (there is a separate 2.4 with 4mb L2)
I'm still not sure whether Apple will go all woodcrest to get better prices on chips and RAM (FB-DIMM is exclusive to woodcrest in apple's potential lineup)but I would expect either 2x2GHz or 2x2.3GHz as a low end quad, and either a 2x2.66 or 2x3.0 for the high end. Perhaps the 3.0GHz will be a BTO option for the 2x2.66, like the 2.16 was a BTO originally on the 2.0 MBP.
"One more thing, you know we complained about not breaking 3GHz with Power-PC, so for our latest quad, we figured you'd all like to finally do that. So, you can order your top level 2.66 Xeon quad as a build to order with two of the 3.0GHz Xeon chips!"
gregorsamsa
Aug 26, 07:17 AM
in my experience, their support has always sucked..even from day 1 with my first PowerMac G5 back in 2004.
Let's see...
PowerMac G5 arrived with a defective superdrive, miscalibrated fans. The genius 'couldn't hear the fans', and accidentally put the repair in someone else's name, so when I tried to pick it up, I had to haggle to get it. Oh, and when I did finally get it, the superdrive was still broken. Super...
Cinema Display arrived with 7 dead pixels...I know this is a touchy issue, but the problem with their support regarding it was that none of them knew the actual number to replace it at. The phone people told me 5, the store (after the 45 minute drive there) told me 15, and another rep (who finally replaced it) told me 3.
iMac G5 had a defective power supply on arrival--would shut off randomly, some times not turning on. They refused to acknowledge this the first time we were there...the second time we were there...third time...fourth time they gave in--by saying "we'll keep it overnight." They still.."couldn't find a problem." When they gave it back, it worked for..two weeks, then the fans started being wonky. They couldn't hear that the first or second visit, on the third visit they took it overnight, "couldn't hear any audible issue", but it shutdown on them. I guess taking our word for it, they replaced the fan assembly, logic board, and power supply. Worked for a month, now it still shuts down.
MacBook Pro had the defective battery (random shutdowns), now fixed. Also, I had the screen buzz (now fixed), CPU A Whine (now fixed). They basically fixed all the issues in this machine, but were four days over their expected return time.
I'm not saying their support is totally crap, but they're certainly not consistent in performance, technical knowledge, friendliness, or even coverage. I was talking to a friend about "what I'd do if I were Steve Jobs," and the first thing we agreed on was to fire the entire AppleCare department, and all the genius', because they all seem to suck.
But hey, my iBook G4 and MacBook are fine...
You, & some others here, have obviously had more than your fair share of bad luck with Apple. Customers paying good money rightly expect to receive faultless products every time. When they don't, it's understandable they're peeved off. In this respect, Apple must do better.
Many others, however, swear by Apple's general reliability & quality of products. (My iBook, bought only last October, is used at least a few hours almost daily. So far, no problems whatsoever!). Fact is, statistics consistently prove Apple still to be one of the best computer manufacturers when it comes to longevity of their products.
PS. I'm not an Apple fanboy. My next computer (a 15.4" laptop) may not even be another Apple. But I'm 100% sure I will buy another Apple computer in future, not least because of the general high quality I know I can expect from Apple compared to many PC manufacturers, & a wonderful OS to boot! - But, then again, if Apple's QC was to deteriorate significantly, & get a consistently growing number of customer complaints...
Let's see...
PowerMac G5 arrived with a defective superdrive, miscalibrated fans. The genius 'couldn't hear the fans', and accidentally put the repair in someone else's name, so when I tried to pick it up, I had to haggle to get it. Oh, and when I did finally get it, the superdrive was still broken. Super...
Cinema Display arrived with 7 dead pixels...I know this is a touchy issue, but the problem with their support regarding it was that none of them knew the actual number to replace it at. The phone people told me 5, the store (after the 45 minute drive there) told me 15, and another rep (who finally replaced it) told me 3.
iMac G5 had a defective power supply on arrival--would shut off randomly, some times not turning on. They refused to acknowledge this the first time we were there...the second time we were there...third time...fourth time they gave in--by saying "we'll keep it overnight." They still.."couldn't find a problem." When they gave it back, it worked for..two weeks, then the fans started being wonky. They couldn't hear that the first or second visit, on the third visit they took it overnight, "couldn't hear any audible issue", but it shutdown on them. I guess taking our word for it, they replaced the fan assembly, logic board, and power supply. Worked for a month, now it still shuts down.
MacBook Pro had the defective battery (random shutdowns), now fixed. Also, I had the screen buzz (now fixed), CPU A Whine (now fixed). They basically fixed all the issues in this machine, but were four days over their expected return time.
I'm not saying their support is totally crap, but they're certainly not consistent in performance, technical knowledge, friendliness, or even coverage. I was talking to a friend about "what I'd do if I were Steve Jobs," and the first thing we agreed on was to fire the entire AppleCare department, and all the genius', because they all seem to suck.
But hey, my iBook G4 and MacBook are fine...
You, & some others here, have obviously had more than your fair share of bad luck with Apple. Customers paying good money rightly expect to receive faultless products every time. When they don't, it's understandable they're peeved off. In this respect, Apple must do better.
Many others, however, swear by Apple's general reliability & quality of products. (My iBook, bought only last October, is used at least a few hours almost daily. So far, no problems whatsoever!). Fact is, statistics consistently prove Apple still to be one of the best computer manufacturers when it comes to longevity of their products.
PS. I'm not an Apple fanboy. My next computer (a 15.4" laptop) may not even be another Apple. But I'm 100% sure I will buy another Apple computer in future, not least because of the general high quality I know I can expect from Apple compared to many PC manufacturers, & a wonderful OS to boot! - But, then again, if Apple's QC was to deteriorate significantly, & get a consistently growing number of customer complaints...
IBradMac
Jun 14, 12:36 AM
Correct to the even though your an authorized user. Authorized users can do anything but add or upgrade, atleaset at RS.
white house black market shoes
Lela Rose Wedding Dress Style
![]()
h'biki
Apr 11, 06:41 PM
Then that just begs the question, "why haven't these people left already?" FCP has been fairly stagnant for years. There are plenty of other alternatives, so doesn't that kinda make them fanboyish too for sticking it out when up to this point Apple has given zero hints about when or how it will take FCP to the next level?
They are abandoning it. I know quite a few FCP editors who have switched to Avid MC5 or Premiere Pro.
We are large facility with about 10-12 full time FCP editors and we will probably switch to Avid MC5 unless Apple provides *needed* features for the future.
I'd there's a general mood of 'Apple is abandoning FCP' in the post community and facilities/users are setting up their exit strategies.
And its a strategy. Buying into new software is expensive and time consuming.
They are abandoning it. I know quite a few FCP editors who have switched to Avid MC5 or Premiere Pro.
We are large facility with about 10-12 full time FCP editors and we will probably switch to Avid MC5 unless Apple provides *needed* features for the future.
I'd there's a general mood of 'Apple is abandoning FCP' in the post community and facilities/users are setting up their exit strategies.
And its a strategy. Buying into new software is expensive and time consuming.
tray3
Apr 25, 03:58 PM
Cry Babies!!
daneoni
Aug 26, 04:08 PM
To be honest i dont really care anymore. As it is, im leaning away from Apple portables and moving to their desktops. Maybe just maybe if the 15" MBP sports a 16x DL superdrive, Magnetic latch Firewire 800 and maybe an extra USB port i may consider. But to be honest the MacPro is looking like a better candidate for me. My PB is fine my mobile computing needs, its time for a powerful workhorse thats more stable and reliable, namely, the MacPro
gnasher729
Jul 27, 05:59 PM
but is still more productive because it handles more calculations per clock cycle
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.
Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.
And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.
Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.
And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.
xPismo
Jul 14, 07:47 PM
WWDC ... it's getting closer ... can't wait to see what's announced. Oh yeah ... we'll see the preview of Leopard too.
Bring it on Steve :D
Yeah. I don't believe a word. No powercord at the top, no tweaked G5 case, no way. Those bits throw the rest into dispute. I think we will all be shocked at what The Steve has for us at wwdc.
OTOH, its been great to finally read the benchmark figures for the new apple processors. It hit me that the mac community will finally have overclocking hardware readily available! Wow!
But this rumor just dosn't look or smell right.
Bring it on Steve :D
Yeah. I don't believe a word. No powercord at the top, no tweaked G5 case, no way. Those bits throw the rest into dispute. I think we will all be shocked at what The Steve has for us at wwdc.
OTOH, its been great to finally read the benchmark figures for the new apple processors. It hit me that the mac community will finally have overclocking hardware readily available! Wow!
But this rumor just dosn't look or smell right.
brayhite
Apr 25, 02:01 PM
I think this IS a privacy issue. That data could end up in the wrong hands. Does anyone store a text document on their iPhone with a list of their bank details and passwords? No, because it could end up in the wrong hands. So could this data that's being collected.
This data shouldn't be recorded without permission, no matter what's being done with it.
And the next time somebody calls you, make sure you get their permission to store their phone number. Don't want to record their data without their consent.
This data shouldn't be recorded without permission, no matter what's being done with it.
And the next time somebody calls you, make sure you get their permission to store their phone number. Don't want to record their data without their consent.
Koadoc
Nov 29, 08:27 AM
Just goes to show you how corrupt the music business really is!:mad:
