Popeye206
Mar 22, 08:01 PM
My take...
Competition is good.
It will be interesting to see if the Playbook sticks. RIM is losing ground in so many areas and from what my daughter says (who works for one of the cell phone companies) that even with all the nice new goodies in BB's, that they are the smart phone that makes them all grimace. She says it's by far the worst phone to activate to trouble shoot. So, will the Playbook be any different?
Samsung... could they have rushed that one out any quicker? They seem desperate to get a tablet to sell. So much for quality control I'm sure.
Is the new Xoom about ready to be run over two minutes out the gate by other Android devices?
From what I can see, the most damage is not going to come in the Apple arena... the iPad is different with iOS, it's proven (15 million sold and growing fast)... it's going to be the other Android devices. Each of them fighting for a small share of customers who don't want Apple.
I honestly believe most consumers care less about the specs. The geeks on this site do.... but the average person does not care. They care about what they hear and see. They see iPads flying out the door. They know the iPad is slick and works.
I'll go with the Analysts on this one... by the end of Apple will own 70-80% market share and the rest will be a mixed bag of struggling tablet makers.
Competition is good.
It will be interesting to see if the Playbook sticks. RIM is losing ground in so many areas and from what my daughter says (who works for one of the cell phone companies) that even with all the nice new goodies in BB's, that they are the smart phone that makes them all grimace. She says it's by far the worst phone to activate to trouble shoot. So, will the Playbook be any different?
Samsung... could they have rushed that one out any quicker? They seem desperate to get a tablet to sell. So much for quality control I'm sure.
Is the new Xoom about ready to be run over two minutes out the gate by other Android devices?
From what I can see, the most damage is not going to come in the Apple arena... the iPad is different with iOS, it's proven (15 million sold and growing fast)... it's going to be the other Android devices. Each of them fighting for a small share of customers who don't want Apple.
I honestly believe most consumers care less about the specs. The geeks on this site do.... but the average person does not care. They care about what they hear and see. They see iPads flying out the door. They know the iPad is slick and works.
I'll go with the Analysts on this one... by the end of Apple will own 70-80% market share and the rest will be a mixed bag of struggling tablet makers.
chatin
Aug 16, 11:58 PM
This poor cache design will kill off the G5's fast in rendering intensive workspaces.
The G5 has only 1MB of cache and it's per core not per cpu. If one core needs to cache 3.5MB of data it's possible on the Mac Pro becauce the CPU cache is fully unified.
I just ran Cinebench 9.5 on my Mac Pro and got 4 Cpu's Showing and a healthy 3.5 Ratio. (That means the CPU's are working together very well, thanks to the Intel Smart Cache.)
:) :p
The G5 has only 1MB of cache and it's per core not per cpu. If one core needs to cache 3.5MB of data it's possible on the Mac Pro becauce the CPU cache is fully unified.
I just ran Cinebench 9.5 on my Mac Pro and got 4 Cpu's Showing and a healthy 3.5 Ratio. (That means the CPU's are working together very well, thanks to the Intel Smart Cache.)
:) :p
glassbathroom
Jul 28, 03:18 AM
It absolutely will!!! Leopard is just going to be mostly beneficial for dual-core machines. Read this article:
http://macosrumors.com/20060710A1.php
Leopard sounds FAST!
MOSR is always good for a laugh, but don't be fooled into believing any of it.
http://macosrumors.com/20060710A1.php
Leopard sounds FAST!
MOSR is always good for a laugh, but don't be fooled into believing any of it.
matticus008
Nov 29, 06:13 AM
One wonders why it hasn't been used in a Court of Law.
Not really, though. There are countless ways of maneuvering around any such royalties, from framing it as an access toll to a deposit or anything in between. This added cost doesn't actually get you anywhere in litigation, most importantly because it in no way stipulates between you, the customer, and the label.
What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music.
Far from it. Each tax payer contributes to fund their local DMV, and yet their services aren't free. The state collects a tax on car sales, which goes in most cases to road improvement, police departments, and the DMV (along with a truly bizarre array of other causes), but it's only part of the cost. You also pay taxes to a general fund, which is distributed to agencies and services you may never use (or even be aware of). Contributing some money cannot be construed as contributing sufficient money here.
You also pay for car insurance which protects you in the event of an accident; intentionally putting yourself in an accident is insurance fraud. There's no such thing as "music fraud" (at least in this construction), but the result is a sort of piracy insurance policy for the label. Naturally, though, the labels claim such exorbitant losses and damages from piracy that even $1 per iPod would hardly dent that figure.
If this went into effect, I would have a defense in court when I downloaded the entire Universal Label Catalog (All Their Music) off the net.
If only it worked that way...
Just to be clear, this whole idea of collecting on music players is nothing short of outrageous. But it doesn't have the legal implications or weight that have been popularized here. They CAN have their cake and eat it, too, and they know it. That's why it's important for me to ensure that these false notions don't become ingrained as part of the Internet groupthink--when you step back into the real world, you'll be equally screwed, with or without this fee.
Not really, though. There are countless ways of maneuvering around any such royalties, from framing it as an access toll to a deposit or anything in between. This added cost doesn't actually get you anywhere in litigation, most importantly because it in no way stipulates between you, the customer, and the label.
What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music.
Far from it. Each tax payer contributes to fund their local DMV, and yet their services aren't free. The state collects a tax on car sales, which goes in most cases to road improvement, police departments, and the DMV (along with a truly bizarre array of other causes), but it's only part of the cost. You also pay taxes to a general fund, which is distributed to agencies and services you may never use (or even be aware of). Contributing some money cannot be construed as contributing sufficient money here.
You also pay for car insurance which protects you in the event of an accident; intentionally putting yourself in an accident is insurance fraud. There's no such thing as "music fraud" (at least in this construction), but the result is a sort of piracy insurance policy for the label. Naturally, though, the labels claim such exorbitant losses and damages from piracy that even $1 per iPod would hardly dent that figure.
If this went into effect, I would have a defense in court when I downloaded the entire Universal Label Catalog (All Their Music) off the net.
If only it worked that way...
Just to be clear, this whole idea of collecting on music players is nothing short of outrageous. But it doesn't have the legal implications or weight that have been popularized here. They CAN have their cake and eat it, too, and they know it. That's why it's important for me to ensure that these false notions don't become ingrained as part of the Internet groupthink--when you step back into the real world, you'll be equally screwed, with or without this fee.
Scottsdale
Apr 6, 10:59 AM
I am shocked that anyone finds this as a positive.
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.
I find this completely backwards from Apple's current position on both CPU and graphics, and I don't think anyone would end up with a faster or better 13" MBA than the current generation. Apple would certainly have to bring back the backlit keyboard and introduce Thunderbolt to sucker anyone into buying such inferior junk! I would recommend people buy the current generation on clearance rather than lose performance everywhere like this. If this is the chip Apple uses in the 13" MBA, prepare for a big drop in capabilities!
I am still in shock anyone finds this a positive? Have you all read the clock speed? The facts about the chip and IGP in ultra low voltage variants?
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.
I find this completely backwards from Apple's current position on both CPU and graphics, and I don't think anyone would end up with a faster or better 13" MBA than the current generation. Apple would certainly have to bring back the backlit keyboard and introduce Thunderbolt to sucker anyone into buying such inferior junk! I would recommend people buy the current generation on clearance rather than lose performance everywhere like this. If this is the chip Apple uses in the 13" MBA, prepare for a big drop in capabilities!
I am still in shock anyone finds this a positive? Have you all read the clock speed? The facts about the chip and IGP in ultra low voltage variants?
bushido
Apr 11, 04:27 PM
i got the iPhone 4 but also got a new Android because i'm sick of the same old school UI after 3 iPhones and i LOVE my android experience, sure i still use my iPhone 4 for some apps i can't get on the android, but apps r really the only thing that still saves the iPhone. of course its stupid to argue about that on a "mac"rumors site, so i'll just ***** up ^^
Roessnakhan
Mar 22, 12:57 PM
I agree.
But who in their right minds would want to own something called a Playbook? :o
The iPad isn't exactly a name to write home about either. Then, neither is TouchPad, Xoom, or Galaxy Tab.
But who in their right minds would want to own something called a Playbook? :o
The iPad isn't exactly a name to write home about either. Then, neither is TouchPad, Xoom, or Galaxy Tab.
mdriftmeyer
Apr 25, 03:57 PM
I'm interested in who funded this research project much to do about nothing and when will this research extend to all the Telcos, corporations and more.
Kebabselector
Mar 22, 12:53 PM
Competition is great, but they market the playbook as a Professional Tablet - which is fine, but if it's a Professional tablet why have so many pictures of it running games?
vincenz
Apr 6, 10:42 AM
I'm curious to see what they have up their sleeves for this.
FF_productions
Jul 14, 04:14 PM
2003: "In 12 months, we'll be at 3GHz".
Mid 2006: "I want to talk about 2.66GHz" although 4 cores running at 2.66GHz (Yum! :D ).
Steve Jobs really must have been embarassed after claiming we'd have 3 ghz when we still can't even pass 2.7 ghz without a huge unstable liquid cooling system. Maybe Intel will bring us 3 ghz next month, a quad 3 ghz Xeon, does that even exist?
My problem with having 4 cores at 2.6 ghz is what will the other Mac Pro's offer? One more month...
Mid 2006: "I want to talk about 2.66GHz" although 4 cores running at 2.66GHz (Yum! :D ).
Steve Jobs really must have been embarassed after claiming we'd have 3 ghz when we still can't even pass 2.7 ghz without a huge unstable liquid cooling system. Maybe Intel will bring us 3 ghz next month, a quad 3 ghz Xeon, does that even exist?
My problem with having 4 cores at 2.6 ghz is what will the other Mac Pro's offer? One more month...
Sweetfeld28
Jul 14, 03:56 PM
i always thought it would make more sense to have the power source at the bottom, yes it would help to lower the center of gravity, but would also help desipate the heat generated from it as well. Once the heat would raise from it, the fans in the middle would help to pull it out quickly, unlike if it was at the top and have all the heat from it rise to the top.
Correct me if i am wrong, as i do not own a G5. But, in my MDD G4 my power supply is at the top, and do notice that my big fan in the middle does tend to run at higher speeds in these hotter summer months.
ryan
Correct me if i am wrong, as i do not own a G5. But, in my MDD G4 my power supply is at the top, and do notice that my big fan in the middle does tend to run at higher speeds in these hotter summer months.
ryan
raymondso
Sep 19, 09:18 AM
0710 PDT - no updates yet - keep counting :-(
1:40 to go :p
1:40 to go :p
LightSpeed1
Mar 31, 02:40 PM
I knew it would happen eventually.
Gurutech
Aug 7, 08:16 PM
Yes, absolutely:
Enhanced 64-bit Support
Leopard delivers 64-bit power in one, universal OS. Now Cocoa and Carbon application frameworks, as well as graphics, scripting, and the rest of the system are all 64-bit. Leopard delivers 64-bit power to both Intel- and PowerPC-based Macs, so you don�t have to install separate applications for different machines. There�s only one version of Mac OS X, so you don�t need to maintain separate operating systems for different uses.
Bridge the Generation Gap
Now that the entire operating system is 64-bit, you can take full advantage of the Xeon chip in Mac Pro and Xserve. You get more processing power at up to 3.0GHz, without limiting your programs to command-line applications, servers, and computation engines. From G3 to Xeon, from MacBook to Xserve, there is just one Leopard.
Wait. Does this mean that the Leopard doesn't support current MBP or MB? the ones that use 32 bit Yonah based Core Duo CPU.
Enhanced 64-bit Support
Leopard delivers 64-bit power in one, universal OS. Now Cocoa and Carbon application frameworks, as well as graphics, scripting, and the rest of the system are all 64-bit. Leopard delivers 64-bit power to both Intel- and PowerPC-based Macs, so you don�t have to install separate applications for different machines. There�s only one version of Mac OS X, so you don�t need to maintain separate operating systems for different uses.
Bridge the Generation Gap
Now that the entire operating system is 64-bit, you can take full advantage of the Xeon chip in Mac Pro and Xserve. You get more processing power at up to 3.0GHz, without limiting your programs to command-line applications, servers, and computation engines. From G3 to Xeon, from MacBook to Xserve, there is just one Leopard.
Wait. Does this mean that the Leopard doesn't support current MBP or MB? the ones that use 32 bit Yonah based Core Duo CPU.
Amazing Iceman
Mar 23, 08:28 AM
And every new version of itunes requires a bigger and faster computer to run, your point? Hardware moves on , every companys takes advantage of that.
office 2010 runs fine on older hardware just like windows 7 does. I would suggest you tr it out yourself before making such statements. Office 2010 runs fine on my 5 year old computer my wife uses.
If you read my original post, you'll notice that I was referring to the fact that many programmers are careless about optimizing their code all because they can count on a large amount of resources, and because they get lazy.
That's why recently Microsoft made a big deal about some of their new software being either rewritten or optimized, when the case is that it was already expected from them to deploy optimized software.
Most Mac programmers are good at optimizing, while many Windows programmers are not.
I have seen Office for Windows run on several computers, as I provide IT support. I know how it works, not just because I see it, but because the users complain about it. Surely, it may run decent on a system with a large size of RAM, but if they didn't have that much RAM and the previous version ran fine with what they had, and now the new one runs slow while adding not enough functionality, then that's being a sloppy programmer.
I don't want to start a discussion about Office I don't really have a problem about it, plus it gets off topic.
office 2010 runs fine on older hardware just like windows 7 does. I would suggest you tr it out yourself before making such statements. Office 2010 runs fine on my 5 year old computer my wife uses.
If you read my original post, you'll notice that I was referring to the fact that many programmers are careless about optimizing their code all because they can count on a large amount of resources, and because they get lazy.
That's why recently Microsoft made a big deal about some of their new software being either rewritten or optimized, when the case is that it was already expected from them to deploy optimized software.
Most Mac programmers are good at optimizing, while many Windows programmers are not.
I have seen Office for Windows run on several computers, as I provide IT support. I know how it works, not just because I see it, but because the users complain about it. Surely, it may run decent on a system with a large size of RAM, but if they didn't have that much RAM and the previous version ran fine with what they had, and now the new one runs slow while adding not enough functionality, then that's being a sloppy programmer.
I don't want to start a discussion about Office I don't really have a problem about it, plus it gets off topic.
BlizzardBomb
Aug 27, 09:49 AM
Well for one thing, Apple doesn't pay street prices. iMacs will only have 2 cores until Kentsfield. So I think it's fair to expct aggressive Conroe speed in the iMac due to the 2 core limitation. iMacs need to be about the same speed as Mac Pros because they only have 2 cores.
All pricing of chips are quoted in bulks of 1000s. And does it matter whether its street pricing or not because Apple still has to fork out an extra 30% for the CPU (+ logic board redesign costs).
All pricing of chips are quoted in bulks of 1000s. And does it matter whether its street pricing or not because Apple still has to fork out an extra 30% for the CPU (+ logic board redesign costs).
MIDI_EVIL
Sep 13, 07:04 AM
Is there a possibility to assign single cores, or even pairs of cores to certain jobs?
For example, have two cores rendering, two cores encoding, two cores processing regular actions, and two cores making breakfast?
Does my PowerBook G4 have 8 Cores? What is an 8-Core?
Rich.
For example, have two cores rendering, two cores encoding, two cores processing regular actions, and two cores making breakfast?
Does my PowerBook G4 have 8 Cores? What is an 8-Core?
Rich.
sgibson
Mar 31, 02:38 PM
You keep using that word� (http://cl.ly/0X032o272d2a3G1T1K3D)
mdelvecchio
Mar 31, 03:22 PM
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
not really. he hails them when they do good, he faults them when they dont. google it.
and this -- is the definition of hypocrisy. will Rubin tweet that his first-ever-tweet is now broken and untrue?
not really. he hails them when they do good, he faults them when they dont. google it.
and this -- is the definition of hypocrisy. will Rubin tweet that his first-ever-tweet is now broken and untrue?
janstett
Aug 17, 10:08 AM
(sideshow bob)The Power PC...The!!!(/sideshow bob)
(silent bob)***** Power PC(/silent bob)
Note: OK, that reference is probably super obscure. Kevin Smith (aka Silent Bob) said in a commentary for one of his early LaserDiscs "***** DVD", obviously before the format took off the way it did).
(silent bob)***** Power PC(/silent bob)
Note: OK, that reference is probably super obscure. Kevin Smith (aka Silent Bob) said in a commentary for one of his early LaserDiscs "***** DVD", obviously before the format took off the way it did).
LagunaSol
Apr 19, 01:57 PM
wow @ post 2.
apple will have a hard time fighting this in court.
Hardly. Samsung would have been fine had they stuck to that original theme, rather than move into Apple's house as a squatter with a subsequent model:
http://www.tmobileniles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/iphone4-vs-galaxy-s-head.jpg
apple will have a hard time fighting this in court.
Hardly. Samsung would have been fine had they stuck to that original theme, rather than move into Apple's house as a squatter with a subsequent model:
http://www.tmobileniles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/iphone4-vs-galaxy-s-head.jpg
triceretops
Apr 27, 08:55 AM
That's good enough for me.
Apple's only screw up here was keeping the infinite database forever on your phone and backed up to your Mac. Their was no reason to back it up to the computer and no reason to keep the data on the phone after it was passed to Apple (encrypted, de-identified etc.) but I suspect the reason was simply "we weren't doing anything bad with it so we never even considered we should delete it later."
I guess you missed the part about the data is used in the phone to help the phone determine it's location faster and more precisely when you do want to use location apps (which I do a lot). So if you don't back the data up and you have to restore the phone (happens every time you do an update) then you would take a hit in location performance.
Apple's only screw up here was keeping the infinite database forever on your phone and backed up to your Mac. Their was no reason to back it up to the computer and no reason to keep the data on the phone after it was passed to Apple (encrypted, de-identified etc.) but I suspect the reason was simply "we weren't doing anything bad with it so we never even considered we should delete it later."
I guess you missed the part about the data is used in the phone to help the phone determine it's location faster and more precisely when you do want to use location apps (which I do a lot). So if you don't back the data up and you have to restore the phone (happens every time you do an update) then you would take a hit in location performance.
Foxglove9
Jul 14, 02:52 PM
If those specs are real then I'm glad I didn't hold out for the Mac Pro and bought a used G5 a few months ago. Dual optical drive slots are nice but for me not necessary.
