bretm
Apr 10, 10:44 AM
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)
Hoping for some better multi-core support(although probably going to have to wait for Lion for the newer QuickTime engine) and a UI that isn't from the 90's:
http://www.candlerblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/03_ambit_fullscreen-300x232.jpg
^ Final Cut on Mac OS 9
Final Cut on Tiger/Leopard/Snow Leopard:
http://adobe-discount.com/product_images/o/apple_final_cut_express_hd_4__90390.jpg
Only thing that's changed is the scroll bars.
Visually still similar. Until you look at the timeline. Since then the entire patch bay system is changed and we have keyframe editing in the timeline. As well as audio tool, waveform vector tool, and pretty high end 3 way color corrector built in.
It's still a more functional and better looking interface than premiere CS5.
http://screenshots.en.softonic.com/en/scrn/12000/12809/adobe-premiere-pro-cs5-07-700x541.png
Hoping for some better multi-core support(although probably going to have to wait for Lion for the newer QuickTime engine) and a UI that isn't from the 90's:
http://www.candlerblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/03_ambit_fullscreen-300x232.jpg
^ Final Cut on Mac OS 9
Final Cut on Tiger/Leopard/Snow Leopard:
http://adobe-discount.com/product_images/o/apple_final_cut_express_hd_4__90390.jpg
Only thing that's changed is the scroll bars.
Visually still similar. Until you look at the timeline. Since then the entire patch bay system is changed and we have keyframe editing in the timeline. As well as audio tool, waveform vector tool, and pretty high end 3 way color corrector built in.
It's still a more functional and better looking interface than premiere CS5.
http://screenshots.en.softonic.com/en/scrn/12000/12809/adobe-premiere-pro-cs5-07-700x541.png
jackc
Aug 7, 04:15 PM
Time Machine looks pretty sweet. How do you think it will work in terms of space requirements?
SuperCachetes
Feb 28, 08:45 PM
No because heterosexuality is the default way the brain works
...And the Oscar for "Greatest Generalization In An Online Forum" goes to...
You.
:rolleyes:
...And the Oscar for "Greatest Generalization In An Online Forum" goes to...
You.
:rolleyes:
LanPhantom
Mar 31, 02:41 PM
How is it biting them in the ass? Android is the fastest growing OS with a larger share than IOS. I think it's been a very succesfull strategy.
It's because of the Buy One Get One option. Nothing more. People choose that option because it makes financial sense and if they don't really care about the OS or the phone, they will choose the one that fits their check books. If Apple was to OK ATT and VZ to do a Buy One Get One on the iPhone, there would be no comparison. It would be game over for Android.
-LanPhantom
It's because of the Buy One Get One option. Nothing more. People choose that option because it makes financial sense and if they don't really care about the OS or the phone, they will choose the one that fits their check books. If Apple was to OK ATT and VZ to do a Buy One Get One on the iPhone, there would be no comparison. It would be game over for Android.
-LanPhantom
Moyank24
Mar 8, 03:28 AM
I won't rejoin this discussion. But since neko girl may be waiting for my reply, I'll only suggest a source (http://www.tfp.org/images/books/Defending_A_Higher_Law.pdf).
Why do you feel the need to hide behind other people's words? Why would you use a book that is 2000 years old to define your morality?
You have made multiple offensive, inflammatory, and downright laughable claims. And the only way you can back them up is by using books, studies, etc..that are so completely biased they can hardly be taken seriously.
I'm sure I would be able to find articles and studies that favor my point of view as well. But why would I need to do that? I don't need written justification to make myself feel better about my beliefs, or the way I choose to live my life.
Venture out into the real world. Read the newspaper...watch TV. Gays and Lesbians are falling in love, getting married, raising children, serving in the military, serving in Congress, teaching in our schools, practicing medicine...Just like heterosexuals. No better and no worse. And the earth continues to revolve around the sun.
But I guess in the end, it's easier to justify hate and ignorance if you have a book like the Bible and organizations like the THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE DEFENSE OF TRADITION, FAMILY AND PROPERTY (?) to stand behind.
Of course if the THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE DEFENSE OF TRADITION, FAMILY AND PROPERTY says it, it must be true. There's no need to listen to those of us in this thread who actually know what we are talking about because we are living it...not because we read an article or a book about it.
Why do you feel the need to hide behind other people's words? Why would you use a book that is 2000 years old to define your morality?
You have made multiple offensive, inflammatory, and downright laughable claims. And the only way you can back them up is by using books, studies, etc..that are so completely biased they can hardly be taken seriously.
I'm sure I would be able to find articles and studies that favor my point of view as well. But why would I need to do that? I don't need written justification to make myself feel better about my beliefs, or the way I choose to live my life.
Venture out into the real world. Read the newspaper...watch TV. Gays and Lesbians are falling in love, getting married, raising children, serving in the military, serving in Congress, teaching in our schools, practicing medicine...Just like heterosexuals. No better and no worse. And the earth continues to revolve around the sun.
But I guess in the end, it's easier to justify hate and ignorance if you have a book like the Bible and organizations like the THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE DEFENSE OF TRADITION, FAMILY AND PROPERTY (?) to stand behind.
Of course if the THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE DEFENSE OF TRADITION, FAMILY AND PROPERTY says it, it must be true. There's no need to listen to those of us in this thread who actually know what we are talking about because we are living it...not because we read an article or a book about it.
shawnce
Aug 7, 09:42 PM
Running the preview now... some nice developer level stuff that I cannot ebelish on however beyond what was talked about in the keynote.
The new Core Animation stuff looks simple yet powerful and will increase the visual effects and feedback that application can do with only minor work on their part.
Also new Xcode Tool capabilities are well... great to have (need to review what is available publicly before I can comment more).
Next spring Apple will have a good answer to Vista with little disruption to end users and developers (unlike Vista).
The new Core Animation stuff looks simple yet powerful and will increase the visual effects and feedback that application can do with only minor work on their part.
Also new Xcode Tool capabilities are well... great to have (need to review what is available publicly before I can comment more).
Next spring Apple will have a good answer to Vista with little disruption to end users and developers (unlike Vista).
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
Jopling
Jul 20, 12:51 PM
New Apple Mac Pro Dual Quad
Dual Intel Xeon 8400 Quardro processors at 3.4Ghz (2 x 4 core)
2Gb Buffered DDR2 RAM
750 Gb Sata2 Hard drive
Blue Ray Super drive 2x
Regular DVD rom in second bay
ATI X1900 video card 512mb PCI express x16
$3950
If that came out in August I'd wet my pants. It's exactly what I want. I need to get a promachine before I move in August.
Dual Intel Xeon 8400 Quardro processors at 3.4Ghz (2 x 4 core)
2Gb Buffered DDR2 RAM
750 Gb Sata2 Hard drive
Blue Ray Super drive 2x
Regular DVD rom in second bay
ATI X1900 video card 512mb PCI express x16
$3950
If that came out in August I'd wet my pants. It's exactly what I want. I need to get a promachine before I move in August.
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 03:50 PM
Ever heard of DoCoMo?
And....
Trying to say that DoCoMo is the majority of the other 19%? Doubt it.
And....
Trying to say that DoCoMo is the majority of the other 19%? Doubt it.
ChrisA
Jul 20, 10:57 AM
.... Introduction of world's first commercial 8-core system.
Not quite the first. Sun has been shipping a commercial 8-core systems for about a year now. The T2000 has all 8 cores on one chip but each core also does four-way hyper threading so they claim 32 hardware threads. The price for an 8-core T1000 is about $8K. A system with 8 cores and 8GB RAM burns about 250W
Of course it does not run OS X but Gnome on Solaris has a very OS X -like "feel" to it.
Not quite the first. Sun has been shipping a commercial 8-core systems for about a year now. The T2000 has all 8 cores on one chip but each core also does four-way hyper threading so they claim 32 hardware threads. The price for an 8-core T1000 is about $8K. A system with 8 cores and 8GB RAM burns about 250W
Of course it does not run OS X but Gnome on Solaris has a very OS X -like "feel" to it.
ergle2
Sep 13, 02:40 PM
So what do you think they meant with M/C/W being a derived arch and Penryn,etc being unified archs?
From what I understood, they'll stop having different characteristics (FSB,RAM,Cache) and instead just differentiate them with MHz and core count. Hence all the stories that future Intel chips (starting with Penryn I presume) won't use FSB.
I believe you've got it backwards. Penryn is a derived arch (check the diagram) -- it's derived from Conroe/Merom, etc., ie it's based on them with "more" -- faster FSB, more cache, a die shrink (which is technically less... :) ) etc.
Unified just means the micro-arch itself the same rather than the entire CPU. This is already true of Core2, and is significantly cheaper in terms production costs. Merom/Conroe are literally the same core in a different package, specified for different voltage/clockspeeds. I'm not sure if Woodcrest is but it seems highly likely.
The one oddity I am aware of is Allendale isn't a Conroe with half the cache disabled, it's actually a specific die. The rest of the microarch itself is the same, however.
Nehalem, etc. aren't derived because they're a new microarch. (Interestingly, Nehalem was originally intended for launch early 2007).
CSI replacing FSB was originally planned for 2006 in older roadmaps. It now looks like a 2008 debut with Tukwila (Itanium, not x86), and will no doubt work its way down from there.
From what I understood, they'll stop having different characteristics (FSB,RAM,Cache) and instead just differentiate them with MHz and core count. Hence all the stories that future Intel chips (starting with Penryn I presume) won't use FSB.
I believe you've got it backwards. Penryn is a derived arch (check the diagram) -- it's derived from Conroe/Merom, etc., ie it's based on them with "more" -- faster FSB, more cache, a die shrink (which is technically less... :) ) etc.
Unified just means the micro-arch itself the same rather than the entire CPU. This is already true of Core2, and is significantly cheaper in terms production costs. Merom/Conroe are literally the same core in a different package, specified for different voltage/clockspeeds. I'm not sure if Woodcrest is but it seems highly likely.
The one oddity I am aware of is Allendale isn't a Conroe with half the cache disabled, it's actually a specific die. The rest of the microarch itself is the same, however.
Nehalem, etc. aren't derived because they're a new microarch. (Interestingly, Nehalem was originally intended for launch early 2007).
CSI replacing FSB was originally planned for 2006 in older roadmaps. It now looks like a 2008 debut with Tukwila (Itanium, not x86), and will no doubt work its way down from there.
janstett
Sep 16, 10:10 AM
Any description of the history of NT that doesn't say "Mica" and "Prism" is missing some major details ;) !
Well, come on! I wrote a synopsis that was already too lengthy. I felt it sufficient to say that Dave Cutler's life at DEC gave him OS Guru status and left it at that. I didn't mention Gordon Letwin either. On either point it's rather like mentioning Brian Kernighan and Rob Pike in a history of OSX -- technically accurate but of marginal relevance.
Well, come on! I wrote a synopsis that was already too lengthy. I felt it sufficient to say that Dave Cutler's life at DEC gave him OS Guru status and left it at that. I didn't mention Gordon Letwin either. On either point it's rather like mentioning Brian Kernighan and Rob Pike in a history of OSX -- technically accurate but of marginal relevance.
Backup15andpunt
Nov 29, 01:34 AM
Here an idea. Have Apple buy Universal. Then Microsoft and pay Apple for every Zune it sells. Of course the government might frown on this kind of purchase.
rayz
Aug 8, 03:08 AM
Well I for one was kind of disappointed. Leopard is sort of Apple's chance to prove they can out-Vista Vista, and I'm not really sure what we saw today does it. I've been following Vista somewhat closely, and it really does catch Windows up to OS X in terms of features and prettiness.
I really think most of the features shown off today are already present in Windows (I've definitely heard about all of them before) or will be in Vista, and it's too bad Apple didn't have anything truly innovative to show us. Hopefully those secret features are something good...
The other thing that has me a little concerned is the huge amount of Vista-bashing that went on. I feel like if Leopard at this point were truly better than Vista, they'd be silent about Vista entirely and let the new system speak for itself. That would be really slick. That's not what happened however, and instead there was a lot of "look what Vista copied from us" and "check out how much better Leopard is." What I saw today, though, makes the former statement sound whiney and the latter sound foolish, since in my eyes, in terms of features, they're about on-par with each other.
I really hope Apple pulls it together. They've got to do this right, because come next year, most of the myriad reasons for switching to a Mac will be nullified by Vista.
BTW: whoever this "Platform Experience" guy is, get him off the stage and go back to Steve.
Have to agree with you on just about everything. If MS tried to release something like this, as anything other than a service pack, their user base would (quite rightly) crucify them.
The TimeMachine mirrors the same functionality that was announced for Vista about a week ago, and everything else is an upgrade rather than anything really new. I was expecting more from the desktop switching, but I have a feeling that will look much different when it's actually released.
But since there is some other stuff planned, then it's best to wait and see what they come up with, before declaring it a dud.
Looks like a nice solid revision so far, but not much else.
.. and given the universal unpopularity of Microsoft's Flip3D interface, I was surprised to see it showing up in the UI for TimeMachine.
I really think most of the features shown off today are already present in Windows (I've definitely heard about all of them before) or will be in Vista, and it's too bad Apple didn't have anything truly innovative to show us. Hopefully those secret features are something good...
The other thing that has me a little concerned is the huge amount of Vista-bashing that went on. I feel like if Leopard at this point were truly better than Vista, they'd be silent about Vista entirely and let the new system speak for itself. That would be really slick. That's not what happened however, and instead there was a lot of "look what Vista copied from us" and "check out how much better Leopard is." What I saw today, though, makes the former statement sound whiney and the latter sound foolish, since in my eyes, in terms of features, they're about on-par with each other.
I really hope Apple pulls it together. They've got to do this right, because come next year, most of the myriad reasons for switching to a Mac will be nullified by Vista.
BTW: whoever this "Platform Experience" guy is, get him off the stage and go back to Steve.
Have to agree with you on just about everything. If MS tried to release something like this, as anything other than a service pack, their user base would (quite rightly) crucify them.
The TimeMachine mirrors the same functionality that was announced for Vista about a week ago, and everything else is an upgrade rather than anything really new. I was expecting more from the desktop switching, but I have a feeling that will look much different when it's actually released.
But since there is some other stuff planned, then it's best to wait and see what they come up with, before declaring it a dud.
Looks like a nice solid revision so far, but not much else.
.. and given the universal unpopularity of Microsoft's Flip3D interface, I was surprised to see it showing up in the UI for TimeMachine.
DesmoPilot
Aug 9, 09:00 PM
i have never heard of SimBin, but looking at the website, it doesn't look bad. do any of their games work in Mac OS X?
Nope, just Windows unfortunately.
Nope, just Windows unfortunately.
Quahog
Apr 8, 07:53 AM
I work at Best Buy, and I can tell you this "rumor" is not true.
First, we do not have daily quotas on iPad sales, although we do have overall budget goals as any company would. iPads had no impact on this.
iPad 2's have been extremely hard to keep in stock, and at least for my store and all the stores in my region, they would sell out within hours of receiving a pretty good sized shipment. (Although the Verizon ones dont sell as well as others, they still sell out too) We did not hold anything back... do you think we like the hundreds of calls and dozens of people asking us if we have any in stock? We took care of every customer we could. In checking inventory levels at other stores, it was zero's all the way down the list.
We are experiencing inventory issues with the iPad. Be it simple unexpected demand, the earthquake in Japan, or Apple wanting to take care of customers through their website and retail store before big box stores... I dont know. But stores certainly are not sitting on them.
First, we do not have daily quotas on iPad sales, although we do have overall budget goals as any company would. iPads had no impact on this.
iPad 2's have been extremely hard to keep in stock, and at least for my store and all the stores in my region, they would sell out within hours of receiving a pretty good sized shipment. (Although the Verizon ones dont sell as well as others, they still sell out too) We did not hold anything back... do you think we like the hundreds of calls and dozens of people asking us if we have any in stock? We took care of every customer we could. In checking inventory levels at other stores, it was zero's all the way down the list.
We are experiencing inventory issues with the iPad. Be it simple unexpected demand, the earthquake in Japan, or Apple wanting to take care of customers through their website and retail store before big box stores... I dont know. But stores certainly are not sitting on them.
flatlined
Jun 9, 11:35 AM
no worries bro, hope i could help! :)
WOW Awesome Thank you so much for the info and the fast response.
I like employees that are on message boards like this and respond to questions like these and taking the time out of their day. Thanks.
So just to make sure. If I do go along with the Trade In on Tuesday I don't have to give them my phone then? when I go back to pick it up then they will take it?
Thanks
WOW Awesome Thank you so much for the info and the fast response.
I like employees that are on message boards like this and respond to questions like these and taking the time out of their day. Thanks.
So just to make sure. If I do go along with the Trade In on Tuesday I don't have to give them my phone then? when I go back to pick it up then they will take it?
Thanks
damnyooneek
Apr 6, 10:25 AM
"But I JUST bought this..."
"3D, 3D, 3D."
"Wait... 4D?"
"You bought the wrong one dummy..."
"3D, 3D, 3D."
"Wait... 4D?"
"You bought the wrong one dummy..."
sotorious
Apr 11, 01:49 PM
Is that source creditable. I was thinking of making the jump ship to an iphone try it out for a year, but the thought of waiting till june to get a phone was a killer in it self. Now waiting till October is def a no go. I already have my phone for a year and that is way to long just for looking at the same phone that whole time.
balamw
Apr 6, 04:40 PM
I should say that I do own an Android device. I own an original Nook, and will probably pick up a 4-7" device at some point to play with in a generation or two.
B
B
usptact
Apr 11, 02:12 AM
Get me right but i get negative impression about Apple reading this : "Canon was told last night that Apple has demanded ALL “lecturn” or stage time exclusively."
It is ok to be ambitious but not imperialistic and mean!
It is ok to be ambitious but not imperialistic and mean!
Hellhammer
Dec 7, 10:55 AM
Corvette ZR1 with Racing Mod. Tune it to max (but get the racing mod and oil change first thing) and you have a 905HP full on racing car for about 600,000cr
In setting makes sure to give it the Maximum amount of Downforce you can, and turn down the accelerator and torque in the LSD, so it's a little easier to control the power.
And Soft Slicks are a must as well.
Here is a pretty good tune (http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=136110#post4225807) for the ZR1
Thanks! I'll definitely get that. So cheap too :p
In setting makes sure to give it the Maximum amount of Downforce you can, and turn down the accelerator and torque in the LSD, so it's a little easier to control the power.
And Soft Slicks are a must as well.
Here is a pretty good tune (http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=136110#post4225807) for the ZR1
Thanks! I'll definitely get that. So cheap too :p
n-abounds
Sep 19, 12:31 AM
-- How about some new textures for the case, such as brushed copper? I think that would look sharp.
The day Apple makes a copper computer is the day it goes out of business.
Seriously DONT GET THAT COMPUTER WET. Leave it inside if it's humid out...:D
I don't want my computer looking like the statue of liberty.
The day Apple makes a copper computer is the day it goes out of business.
Seriously DONT GET THAT COMPUTER WET. Leave it inside if it's humid out...:D
I don't want my computer looking like the statue of liberty.
treblah
Jul 27, 10:43 AM
Wowzers, that expensive.
"$999 for the 2.93GHz Core 2 Extreme X6800"
$999 for the 4.0GHz Core 2 Extreme (http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=18)� :)
"$999 for the 2.93GHz Core 2 Extreme X6800"
$999 for the 4.0GHz Core 2 Extreme (http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=18)� :)
