kdarling
Mar 31, 04:16 PM
Yet what he said is 100% accurate..Weird how that can happen sometimes.
Gruber is rarely accurate in his conclusions, and this time is no exception.
None of what is happening smacks of being a "bait-and-switch" as he claims. That would've required extremely clever pre-planning years ago on the part of Google.
Instead, it's got all the hallmarks of too little pre-planning.
Anyone with experience dealing with large projects can see that Rubin has belatedly come to realize that things were getting out of control. Now he is goofing up trying to take full control himself instead of doing the smart thing and first getting a consensus from the OHA members.
Gruber is rarely accurate in his conclusions, and this time is no exception.
None of what is happening smacks of being a "bait-and-switch" as he claims. That would've required extremely clever pre-planning years ago on the part of Google.
Instead, it's got all the hallmarks of too little pre-planning.
Anyone with experience dealing with large projects can see that Rubin has belatedly come to realize that things were getting out of control. Now he is goofing up trying to take full control himself instead of doing the smart thing and first getting a consensus from the OHA members.
0815
Mar 31, 04:16 PM
Interesting ... I was always told by Android Fans that the system is so "open" and not "fragmented" ... hmmm ... looks like google disagrees and admits it is fragmented and that 'closed' is better :D
acearchie
Apr 5, 04:51 PM
Now this sounds exciting!
Multimedia
Jul 21, 05:59 AM
With all these new technologies with 4, 8 and eventually 24-core capacities (some time in the not too distant future) all running at 64-bit, we musn't forget that software also has tobe developed for these machienes in order to get the most out of the hardware. At the moment we aren't even maximising core-duo, let alone a quad core and all the rest!!!!
Besides, for 90% of what non-pro users do, these advances will help very little. Internet will still run at the same spead and my ipod will still chug along with USB2 etc.
Pros with pro apps acn rejoice, only if software keeps the pace!!!
Let's hope so!!!Not exactly. Multiple cores is as much about multitasking multiple applications or multiple instances of the same application simultaneously as it is about running one or two that use all the cores. The OS X system delegates multicore use to some extent already. I'm sure that all the developers will be looking at how to use all the cores Intel can throw at them at this year's WWDC. :)
I can tell you from experience that it is very easy to fill up four cores with work and max out what you can do simultaneously on the G5 Quad. So for those of us who do the kind of work that needs a lot of cores, 8 core Macs won't come soon enough.
In this example, all of the applications are running slower than they would with 8 cores. They are already slowed down by virtue of only having 4 cores to work in. Both Toast 7 and Handbrake can use more than two cores for each instance. I sometimes run as many as three of each simultaneously. They each have to run dog slow in that circumstance due to lack of core volume. So 8 is a start. 16 would be much more helpful to me immediately.
Besides, for 90% of what non-pro users do, these advances will help very little. Internet will still run at the same spead and my ipod will still chug along with USB2 etc.
Pros with pro apps acn rejoice, only if software keeps the pace!!!
Let's hope so!!!Not exactly. Multiple cores is as much about multitasking multiple applications or multiple instances of the same application simultaneously as it is about running one or two that use all the cores. The OS X system delegates multicore use to some extent already. I'm sure that all the developers will be looking at how to use all the cores Intel can throw at them at this year's WWDC. :)
I can tell you from experience that it is very easy to fill up four cores with work and max out what you can do simultaneously on the G5 Quad. So for those of us who do the kind of work that needs a lot of cores, 8 core Macs won't come soon enough.
In this example, all of the applications are running slower than they would with 8 cores. They are already slowed down by virtue of only having 4 cores to work in. Both Toast 7 and Handbrake can use more than two cores for each instance. I sometimes run as many as three of each simultaneously. They each have to run dog slow in that circumstance due to lack of core volume. So 8 is a start. 16 would be much more helpful to me immediately.
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.
snebes
Apr 19, 04:33 PM
Why is it so hard for people to read English. Nowhere does it indicate those are numbers for the first quarter. In fact it is pretty clear it does not actually include the month of March..
Apples Q1 2011 ended around January this year. I don't have exact dates on hand, but their fiscal year starts in September.
Apples Q1 2011 ended around January this year. I don't have exact dates on hand, but their fiscal year starts in September.
Demoman
Sep 15, 10:52 PM
Uh, last time I checked, Windows can take advantage of multiple cores just fine. Do you think that multithreading is some Black Magic that only MacOS can do? Hell, standard Linux from kernel.org can use 512 cores as we speak!
Related to this: Maybe not 512-way SMP, but here (http://www.linux-mips.org/wiki/IP27_boot_messages) is what it looks like when Linux boots on 128-way SGI Origin supercomputer. Note, the kernel that is booting is 2.4.1, which was released in early 2001. Things have progressed A LOT since those day.
OS X works with quad core == "Ahead of technology curve"... puhleeze!
Windows works just fine with dual-core. It really does. To Wndows, dual-core is more or less similar to typical SMP, and Windows has supported SMP since Windows NT!
Any reason why it wouldn't work? And did you even read the Anandtech-article? They conducted their benchmarks in Windows XP! So it obviously DID work with four cores! And it DID show substantial improvement in performance in real-life apps! Sheesh! Dial tone that fanboysihness a bit, dude.
I think the same applies to you, Bill. You seem to be here to act as a Microsoft evangelist.
Related to this: Maybe not 512-way SMP, but here (http://www.linux-mips.org/wiki/IP27_boot_messages) is what it looks like when Linux boots on 128-way SGI Origin supercomputer. Note, the kernel that is booting is 2.4.1, which was released in early 2001. Things have progressed A LOT since those day.
OS X works with quad core == "Ahead of technology curve"... puhleeze!
Windows works just fine with dual-core. It really does. To Wndows, dual-core is more or less similar to typical SMP, and Windows has supported SMP since Windows NT!
Any reason why it wouldn't work? And did you even read the Anandtech-article? They conducted their benchmarks in Windows XP! So it obviously DID work with four cores! And it DID show substantial improvement in performance in real-life apps! Sheesh! Dial tone that fanboysihness a bit, dude.
I think the same applies to you, Bill. You seem to be here to act as a Microsoft evangelist.
SPUY767
Mar 26, 08:17 PM
Since the release of Leopard, the subsequent releases haven't had the wow factor of before.
Just what I think anyway.
They haven't had the wow factor because they've been under the hood improvement releases rather than feature releases. Snow Leopard was the big one. Almost all the changes were under the hood. Lion is going to be a big feature release with a wow factor.
Just what I think anyway.
They haven't had the wow factor because they've been under the hood improvement releases rather than feature releases. Snow Leopard was the big one. Almost all the changes were under the hood. Lion is going to be a big feature release with a wow factor.
OceanView
Apr 11, 01:46 PM
I can live with it if they include a larger screen, 4G, Larger Capacity and the A5. Possibly 1GB RAM. That would be sweet :)
edenwaith
Jul 14, 04:39 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 ).
Kind of odd/funny how we seem to be going backwards in processor speeds. Instead of 3.6 GHz Pentiums, we are looking at 2.x GHz Intel Cores. It would be interesting to see how well a single Core processor matches up to PowerPC, or a Pentium, or AMD.
However, I am finding one of my predicitions finally happen...it appears that a ceiling has been currently met on how fast the current line of processors can go, and now we are relying on multiple cores/processors to distribute work, instead of relying on just one fast chip.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
Mid 2006: "I want to talk about 2.66GHz" although 4 cores running at 2.66GHz (Yum! :D ).
Kind of odd/funny how we seem to be going backwards in processor speeds. Instead of 3.6 GHz Pentiums, we are looking at 2.x GHz Intel Cores. It would be interesting to see how well a single Core processor matches up to PowerPC, or a Pentium, or AMD.
However, I am finding one of my predicitions finally happen...it appears that a ceiling has been currently met on how fast the current line of processors can go, and now we are relying on multiple cores/processors to distribute work, instead of relying on just one fast chip.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
wizard
Apr 7, 11:05 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Guys Apple is not to blame for this one. Well other than doing business with a sleazy business like Best Buy.
Honestly it has been like eight years since I've entered a Best Buy, everything about the place just feels undesirable and corrupt. The fact that many here are surprised at this non-sense highlights a marginal expectation for ethical behavior. No one really needs to shop at Best Buy, there are plenty of alternatives.
Guys Apple is not to blame for this one. Well other than doing business with a sleazy business like Best Buy.
Honestly it has been like eight years since I've entered a Best Buy, everything about the place just feels undesirable and corrupt. The fact that many here are surprised at this non-sense highlights a marginal expectation for ethical behavior. No one really needs to shop at Best Buy, there are plenty of alternatives.
Bill McEnaney
Feb 28, 12:52 PM
What is a "gay lifestyle" exactly? We get up, take a shower, brush our teeth, go to work and come home to our families just like anyone else.
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
RMDI
Apr 27, 09:22 AM
Does Apple really think this double talk, where they say they keep a database of location but don't log the location is going to fly?
But it is true! They didn't log that I was at this date and hour in this restaurant and next hour I was at position xyz, but it was a cache of something related but also different. For example for every celltower-data there is only one timestamp. So you can't even determinate when a place was first (or even last) visited. For real location tracking this data is really inaccurate and useless. Location tracking was not the purpose of this cache and not the intention of Apple. I think it is legitim and important when they emphasize that in their Q&A.
What this data is useable for is drawing nice circles on a google map and visualizing a path of traveling between cities if you have physical access to your personal computer. And all this points are adressed in a software update.
But it is true! They didn't log that I was at this date and hour in this restaurant and next hour I was at position xyz, but it was a cache of something related but also different. For example for every celltower-data there is only one timestamp. So you can't even determinate when a place was first (or even last) visited. For real location tracking this data is really inaccurate and useless. Location tracking was not the purpose of this cache and not the intention of Apple. I think it is legitim and important when they emphasize that in their Q&A.
What this data is useable for is drawing nice circles on a google map and visualizing a path of traveling between cities if you have physical access to your personal computer. And all this points are adressed in a software update.
Chundles
Jul 20, 09:21 AM
No I think you are confused. :) I meant "Is having more cores, lets say 8, more efficient than one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores?"
Well next time say what you mean. It makes more sense. ;)
Well next time say what you mean. It makes more sense. ;)
Durendal
Apr 5, 07:10 PM
About time. FCP is aging poorly. The engine is still Carbon and based around the old QT, which means that a lot of functions only use two cores at the most. I think we'll finally see Apple seriously leveraging GCD, OpenCL, etc here, although don't expect video compression to use OpenCL if the lousy quality of CUDA encodes is any indicator. Maybe Apple will add support for QuickSync on Sandy Bridge.
Also, Compressor is a damned joke. When your "Pro" software encoder gives you less options and lower quality with longer render times than free alternatives, you really need to go back to the drawing board. Yes, a lot of folks use hardware encoders, but really, if you're going to include a software encoder, at least make it as good as free software...
Also, Compressor is a damned joke. When your "Pro" software encoder gives you less options and lower quality with longer render times than free alternatives, you really need to go back to the drawing board. Yes, a lot of folks use hardware encoders, but really, if you're going to include a software encoder, at least make it as good as free software...
aegisdesign
Sep 13, 12:30 PM
The Mac Pro isn't for most people. It's for professionals and professional applications, which are usally multithreaded, and will take advantage of the capabilities.
If you have a complaint about all these cores and not being able to take advantage of them, then this is not the computer for you. You're probably not using the software that will take advantage of them, so let it go and stop whining about it. For the those of us that do, this is great news.
It was just a general point, not a whine, so don't get your panties in a bunch. And some of the applications that don't take advantage of multiple cores currently are Adobe Photoshop and Quicktime which both rarely use more than two cores and sometimes only one. Both pretty important to professionals.
If you have a complaint about all these cores and not being able to take advantage of them, then this is not the computer for you. You're probably not using the software that will take advantage of them, so let it go and stop whining about it. For the those of us that do, this is great news.
It was just a general point, not a whine, so don't get your panties in a bunch. And some of the applications that don't take advantage of multiple cores currently are Adobe Photoshop and Quicktime which both rarely use more than two cores and sometimes only one. Both pretty important to professionals.
JRM PowerPod
Aug 11, 11:46 PM
The K800 battery life is rubbish I've found, I wouldn't particularly recommend one, same with the K610i.
I would recommend it, battery life is rubbish if you're taking 3.2 megapixel photos all the time, on your 3G content, and playing music, but i've found for such a feature packed phone it still gets about 3-4days standyby on my network, obviously this is going to be depedent on who is your service provider
I would recommend it, battery life is rubbish if you're taking 3.2 megapixel photos all the time, on your 3G content, and playing music, but i've found for such a feature packed phone it still gets about 3-4days standyby on my network, obviously this is going to be depedent on who is your service provider
KnightWRX
Apr 8, 08:26 PM
Intel isn't forcing anything. Mac Book pro's are using Sandy Bridge AND have a separate graphics chipset. :rolleyes:
Again, let me be a broken record :
Intel forced nVidia out of the chipset business, making the choice of IGPs for OEMs be Intel or Intel. Now we're back to square one, where IGP = suck. When nVidia made IGPs, at least they made half-decent ones.
The 320m is an IGP, same as the Intel stuff. Except it doesn't suck.
Again, let me be a broken record :
Intel forced nVidia out of the chipset business, making the choice of IGPs for OEMs be Intel or Intel. Now we're back to square one, where IGP = suck. When nVidia made IGPs, at least they made half-decent ones.
The 320m is an IGP, same as the Intel stuff. Except it doesn't suck.
cmaier
Mar 31, 05:20 PM
It is crazy for people to pretend like Google makes Android to be benevolent and help the world. They have financial motives, and they have to protect their interests.
Agreed. But then Google should stop spouting off about how they have altruistic motives rooted in openness and puppies.
Agreed. But then Google should stop spouting off about how they have altruistic motives rooted in openness and puppies.
Yvan256
Apr 19, 02:01 PM
why? iphones outselling itouches by so much makes sense to me.
But it doesn't make sense to a lot of us. The monthly fees on an iPhone are just too much for a lot of budgets. You pay your iPod touch once and that's it. No more to pay every month after that.
But it doesn't make sense to a lot of us. The monthly fees on an iPhone are just too much for a lot of budgets. You pay your iPod touch once and that's it. No more to pay every month after that.
backdraft
Aug 26, 02:49 PM
Call it what you want but these new MacBooks are crap. Yea there is people who are enjoying theirs without a hitch but look at all the reports of problems. Not once on this forum have we had a flood of problems with a single unit. Apple dropped the ball on this one. Poorly made unit
Apple is now getting their parts from the same bin that PC makers use. Intel = cheap parts. Cheap parts = low quality.
Same thing with the batteries....
OS X can run on PPC and X86. Apple should target X86 to consumers and PPC for pro's.
That $100 million that Apple just wasted on Creative could have meant new supercooled mobile G5's if it would have been pumped into IBM (Power.org). Instead we have these halfbaked Wintel parts to deal with MUCH fewer problems with PowerPC based Mac's.
http://www.appledefects.com/?cat=6
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=MacBook_Pro
Apple is now getting their parts from the same bin that PC makers use. Intel = cheap parts. Cheap parts = low quality.
Same thing with the batteries....
OS X can run on PPC and X86. Apple should target X86 to consumers and PPC for pro's.
That $100 million that Apple just wasted on Creative could have meant new supercooled mobile G5's if it would have been pumped into IBM (Power.org). Instead we have these halfbaked Wintel parts to deal with MUCH fewer problems with PowerPC based Mac's.
http://www.appledefects.com/?cat=6
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=MacBook_Pro
shawnce
Jul 20, 11:55 AM
He was referring to my post in which I was referring to MWSF '07, not the WWDC.
Ah I see ... thought it was about WWDC 2006 my bad.
I still don't think we'll se a full release at MWSF but I think the date will be announced.
Yeah I don't think we will see 10.5 released at MWSF '07 (thinking CQ2 2007) but after I get back from WWDC I may have a different understanding of the current state of 10.5.
Ah I see ... thought it was about WWDC 2006 my bad.
I still don't think we'll se a full release at MWSF but I think the date will be announced.
Yeah I don't think we will see 10.5 released at MWSF '07 (thinking CQ2 2007) but after I get back from WWDC I may have a different understanding of the current state of 10.5.
cherry38
Aug 11, 05:04 PM
You might want to read some reviews on the Chocolate before buying it. I've seen a handful of reviews that were less than favorable.
A good resource is Phonescoop.com. They usually have a decent amount of user reviews upon which you can base your purchasing decisions.
I just bought a chocolate and I absolutely love it. Great battery, great sound, best reception out of any Verizon phone I'd ever had.
The best thing - IT DOESN'T HAVE THE STANDARD VERIZON USER INTERFACE! I really hate how Verizon forces that onto all of their phones now.
I'd say go for it :)
A good resource is Phonescoop.com. They usually have a decent amount of user reviews upon which you can base your purchasing decisions.
I just bought a chocolate and I absolutely love it. Great battery, great sound, best reception out of any Verizon phone I'd ever had.
The best thing - IT DOESN'T HAVE THE STANDARD VERIZON USER INTERFACE! I really hate how Verizon forces that onto all of their phones now.
I'd say go for it :)
boncellis
Jul 20, 09:19 AM
Remember Apple will be privvy to a lot more information that we as consumers are. They are probably on a level playing field at least with Intel compared with other PC vendors. They may even have a special relationship with Intel to get stuff slightly before people like Lenovo and Dell.
That's a good point, I'm sure Intel gives them a heads-up because they are such a major vendor. My larger point though is whether Apple's modus operandi will have to change to accomodate, or take advantage rather, such an increase in availability of new technology.
Before I would look forward to a new form factor or case or structure--now I tend to think their designs will remain a little longer.
That's a good point, I'm sure Intel gives them a heads-up because they are such a major vendor. My larger point though is whether Apple's modus operandi will have to change to accomodate, or take advantage rather, such an increase in availability of new technology.
Before I would look forward to a new form factor or case or structure--now I tend to think their designs will remain a little longer.
0 comments:
Post a Comment