balamw
Aug 7, 06:39 PM
Norton's GoBack, which was purchased from some other company
Yeah, I recommended GoBack to a number of users back in the day (I think it was Adaptec that owned it at one point). No-one seemed to like it at the time.
As I and others reminisce it's a feature that has been around for well over 20 years in VMS. It's only relatively new to personal computers.
B
Yeah, I recommended GoBack to a number of users back in the day (I think it was Adaptec that owned it at one point). No-one seemed to like it at the time.
As I and others reminisce it's a feature that has been around for well over 20 years in VMS. It's only relatively new to personal computers.
B
John.B
Apr 6, 10:31 AM
Now just add that Thunderbolt port to the MBAs and I'll be first in line! :D
neko girl
Mar 1, 12:30 AM
In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Your ignorance is staggering.
Your ignorance is staggering.
arkitect
Mar 3, 04:52 AM
I believe that every "gay" person should be celibate.
Why?
I also think opposite-sex monogamous marriage is the only appropriate context for sex
Why?
Yes, I know you "explain", but I just never get it.
I'm heterosexual. I still feel opposite-sex attraction, but my sex drive has been weak for years. I'm grateful for that weakness, too, because I don't see others as mere objects.
Last year I (male) married my partner (male) — we've been together 11 years. (As an aside, that 11 year relationship has outlasted all — and I mean all my straight cousins's marriages and relationships).
Now, you may not like to hear this, but when we have sex we make love. I do not see him as just an object. I fell in love with him because he is a wonderful man. He makes me happy and content.
No different from other couples straight or gay.
So why should we suddenly live together in a platonic relationship — because you have issues with sex?
We're pretty middle class (Shock *gasp* horror). We look out for our neighbours, our friends come around for dinner and sometimes they bring their little kids along. Listen to music and nod off in front of the TV. We have sex, sorry to freak you out, but we do.
In all respects we are normal adults contributing to society, paying taxes, recycling our (maybe too many) wine bottles etc.
Look I am sorry life apparently dealt you a few nasty cards, but perhaps you should consider a religious retreat — life in a monastery can be I hear very fulfilling for men and women like you.
But please leave the rest of us to deal with 21st century issues.
And as for your two gay friends… well… I don't know if I wouldn't file them under I for imaginary. That is just my gut instinct. (Unless the couple you refer to are Catholic priests, in which case… I guess.)
Why?
I also think opposite-sex monogamous marriage is the only appropriate context for sex
Why?
Yes, I know you "explain", but I just never get it.
I'm heterosexual. I still feel opposite-sex attraction, but my sex drive has been weak for years. I'm grateful for that weakness, too, because I don't see others as mere objects.
Last year I (male) married my partner (male) — we've been together 11 years. (As an aside, that 11 year relationship has outlasted all — and I mean all my straight cousins's marriages and relationships).
Now, you may not like to hear this, but when we have sex we make love. I do not see him as just an object. I fell in love with him because he is a wonderful man. He makes me happy and content.
No different from other couples straight or gay.
So why should we suddenly live together in a platonic relationship — because you have issues with sex?
We're pretty middle class (Shock *gasp* horror). We look out for our neighbours, our friends come around for dinner and sometimes they bring their little kids along. Listen to music and nod off in front of the TV. We have sex, sorry to freak you out, but we do.
In all respects we are normal adults contributing to society, paying taxes, recycling our (maybe too many) wine bottles etc.
Look I am sorry life apparently dealt you a few nasty cards, but perhaps you should consider a religious retreat — life in a monastery can be I hear very fulfilling for men and women like you.
But please leave the rest of us to deal with 21st century issues.
And as for your two gay friends… well… I don't know if I wouldn't file them under I for imaginary. That is just my gut instinct. (Unless the couple you refer to are Catholic priests, in which case… I guess.)
Taustin Powers
Aug 12, 04:41 AM
Multi-quote madness!!! :eek:
fivepoint
Apr 28, 03:50 PM
I wonder what it would be like to go through life looking for racism around every corner? Constantly seeing the world in these glasses would have to be very tiresome and frustrating. Pretty sad really. People need to stop thinking about themselves and others as being members of groups, and start thinking of everyone as individuals. We're a society of individuals, we get our rights and our liberties as individuals, not because we're part of group A or group B.
If liberals would stop 'crying wolf' ('claiming racism') at every corner, we might actually take them seriously and help out when there's actual evidence.
If liberals would stop 'crying wolf' ('claiming racism') at every corner, we might actually take them seriously and help out when there's actual evidence.
Astro7x
Apr 7, 02:54 PM
It's easy. The average person isn't watching blu-rays on a 27 inch or less screen. They get them for their big 50-60 inch TVs. And the sales of Macs are rising despite the lack. True professionals do what is needed to get the job done. Including buying a stand alone drive and 3rd party software if the simple menus in DVD Studio Pro are not enough
I disagree. I would argue that the reason people are not watching Blurays on their computers is because they CAN'T watch them on a computer. Blowing up a regular DVD to full screen on an Apple 27 inch cinema display looks horrible, and the alternative is a highly compressed H264 that looks amazing in comparison. I guarantee that if every Mac shipped with a Bluray drive, I'd have more clients requesting Bluray discs. Clients seem to love DVDs because they are dummy proof. Bluray? The smart ones will have to wait to watch it until they get home where they can put it on their PS3 or something. The others will stick it in their MacBook and then send me an E-mail saying that the DVD they received doesn't work.
Apple has to see financial benefits in not including Bluray in their computers. The professionals will add a drive to their MacPros so they can burn them. But consumers? Apple would no doubt take somewhat of a hit in profit for every Bluray drive that goes into a Mac. They'd also rather sell the HD media through the iTunes Store and make a profit there too. I'll admit it, one of the reasons I haven't switched completely over to buying Bluray Discs is because I can't watch them on my Laptop.
I disagree. I would argue that the reason people are not watching Blurays on their computers is because they CAN'T watch them on a computer. Blowing up a regular DVD to full screen on an Apple 27 inch cinema display looks horrible, and the alternative is a highly compressed H264 that looks amazing in comparison. I guarantee that if every Mac shipped with a Bluray drive, I'd have more clients requesting Bluray discs. Clients seem to love DVDs because they are dummy proof. Bluray? The smart ones will have to wait to watch it until they get home where they can put it on their PS3 or something. The others will stick it in their MacBook and then send me an E-mail saying that the DVD they received doesn't work.
Apple has to see financial benefits in not including Bluray in their computers. The professionals will add a drive to their MacPros so they can burn them. But consumers? Apple would no doubt take somewhat of a hit in profit for every Bluray drive that goes into a Mac. They'd also rather sell the HD media through the iTunes Store and make a profit there too. I'll admit it, one of the reasons I haven't switched completely over to buying Bluray Discs is because I can't watch them on my Laptop.
marmotmammal
Apr 6, 02:41 PM
As with many FCP users, I am very accustomed to the entire FCP workflow. The editing is awesome and fuss-free. Of course, there are always complaints. Compressor constantly gets low grades. Transcoding is painful to some. Nevertheless, FCP can activate multiple events so the computer can process these things unattended as I frolic in the park or do other things.
I've tried Premiere Pro and Sony Vegas. I have Premiere Elements 9 on hand if I need native AVCHD editing. But FCP has the guts I prefer. It's akin to my excursion from Pro Tools to Logic Pro. Ultimately I returned to Pro Tools for the editing features, irrespectively of the realtime bounce.
'hoping that the FCP upgrade next week is stellar. It will be painful to switch to another NLE.
I've tried Premiere Pro and Sony Vegas. I have Premiere Elements 9 on hand if I need native AVCHD editing. But FCP has the guts I prefer. It's akin to my excursion from Pro Tools to Logic Pro. Ultimately I returned to Pro Tools for the editing features, irrespectively of the realtime bounce.
'hoping that the FCP upgrade next week is stellar. It will be painful to switch to another NLE.
�algiris
Mar 31, 03:14 PM
Ditto. Gruber is as much a blow hard as anyone can possibly be. He's such an arrogant, self-absorbing prick of a human being, without an un-biased bone in his body. He is the epitome of Apple fanboy.
He's self-loving jerk everyone knows that, but what's even worse that he's more often right than wrong. That makes fandroids go mental.
He's self-loving jerk everyone knows that, but what's even worse that he's more often right than wrong. That makes fandroids go mental.
Sequin
Apr 11, 02:35 PM
I don't mind waiting till September, but not till next year. I still have the iPhone 3 and have been putting off getting a new one till 5.
BC2009
Apr 12, 05:42 PM
That is what the 49$ 3GS is for...
My buddy just got one the other day. Why cause it was 49 bucks...
and i got an HTC INspire for $20 that is better than my old 3GS
I think the $49 3Gs is AT&T's attempt to offer something that Verizon does not. Previous to Verizon getting the iPhone, the cheapest iPhone price was $99, and once the iPhone 5 comes out, I expect that there will no longer be a $49 iPhone option.
Offering a two-year old model at a discount is not what I call a deal -- and mind you -- I own a 32GB iPhone 3Gs while I am awaiting the iPhone 5. I love my iPhone 3Gs, but I would not advise anybody to buy one today with the iPhone 5 just around the corner.
Apple would do better creating a trendy newly-released iPhone-nano for a lower price and perhaps use iAd to help monetize it (the same way Amazon is doing with Kindle). Teens would much rather own a trendy new phone than a two-year old model that looks dated when held up next to its successor -- but that is just my guess at what the market would do -- I am certainly not all-knowing.
My buddy just got one the other day. Why cause it was 49 bucks...
and i got an HTC INspire for $20 that is better than my old 3GS
I think the $49 3Gs is AT&T's attempt to offer something that Verizon does not. Previous to Verizon getting the iPhone, the cheapest iPhone price was $99, and once the iPhone 5 comes out, I expect that there will no longer be a $49 iPhone option.
Offering a two-year old model at a discount is not what I call a deal -- and mind you -- I own a 32GB iPhone 3Gs while I am awaiting the iPhone 5. I love my iPhone 3Gs, but I would not advise anybody to buy one today with the iPhone 5 just around the corner.
Apple would do better creating a trendy newly-released iPhone-nano for a lower price and perhaps use iAd to help monetize it (the same way Amazon is doing with Kindle). Teens would much rather own a trendy new phone than a two-year old model that looks dated when held up next to its successor -- but that is just my guess at what the market would do -- I am certainly not all-knowing.
Unspeaked
Nov 29, 12:10 PM
I'm certainly not on the record label's side on this, and I'm someone who almost never downloads anything online (not even free, MP3 of the week type tracks), but I think two important things we're glossing over are:
1 It is illegal to pirate music, regardless of whether or not a label gives their artists their fair share of profits.
2 Like it or not, most of the music on most people's portable music players is downloaded off of P2P. We "affluent" Mac users, who stay on the cutting edge of technology and come to places like MacRumors for heated exchanges about Apple news are not a typical cross section of music consumers.
I'd reckon most iPods are owned by the under 21 crowd, who've grown up with P2P as an ever-present option for music, and who swap songs with friends without thinking twice about it.
And as this generation gets older, things will only get worse for the labels, I figure.
On the other hand, at some point in time, this same generation will be in our courtrooms running the judicial system and in our capitol running our government, so it could be that some of these antiquated laws get modified for the digital age, but until then, refer back to Points 1 and 2 above and realize that despite how we may feel about the issue, it's illegal to download music freely and most people are doing it...
1 It is illegal to pirate music, regardless of whether or not a label gives their artists their fair share of profits.
2 Like it or not, most of the music on most people's portable music players is downloaded off of P2P. We "affluent" Mac users, who stay on the cutting edge of technology and come to places like MacRumors for heated exchanges about Apple news are not a typical cross section of music consumers.
I'd reckon most iPods are owned by the under 21 crowd, who've grown up with P2P as an ever-present option for music, and who swap songs with friends without thinking twice about it.
And as this generation gets older, things will only get worse for the labels, I figure.
On the other hand, at some point in time, this same generation will be in our courtrooms running the judicial system and in our capitol running our government, so it could be that some of these antiquated laws get modified for the digital age, but until then, refer back to Points 1 and 2 above and realize that despite how we may feel about the issue, it's illegal to download music freely and most people are doing it...
Hellhammer
Apr 6, 12:08 PM
Are you smoking something? Sure the IGP used in SB 13" MBP might get some fudged numbers by those who report for Apple, but you think the ULV SB IGP is going to even compare to the 320m on any level??? Huh? You are far smarter than that.
So what you are saying is, AnandTech manipulated their own benchmarks so Intel HD 3000 would look better than 320M? That's how I interpret your post. If all you want to believe is those Windows scores which are irrelevant when it comes to OS X, be my guest.
I didn't say the ULV IGP will be anything close to 320M, but just because it's 50% worse under Windows doesn't mean that it will be as bad in OS X. I'm pretty sure you even said that the benchmarks under Windows are not relevant when the first preview of SB was published.
So what you are saying is, AnandTech manipulated their own benchmarks so Intel HD 3000 would look better than 320M? That's how I interpret your post. If all you want to believe is those Windows scores which are irrelevant when it comes to OS X, be my guest.
I didn't say the ULV IGP will be anything close to 320M, but just because it's 50% worse under Windows doesn't mean that it will be as bad in OS X. I'm pretty sure you even said that the benchmarks under Windows are not relevant when the first preview of SB was published.
qtx43
Mar 31, 05:11 PM
That was a hoot changing the search to Bing. Only thing gutsier would be to somehow replace every admob ad to a competitor.
I wouldn't leave Google completely blameless here. They knew who they were dealing with. They need eyeballs to sell (ad business) so they made their bed. Same reason why the software marketplace on android sucks, they designed it for their bottom line (eyeballs). They aren't making a product for people to use, they're making a channel to deliver a product (eyeballs) to their customers (advertisers).Except Google makes a big deal about how they support open source and aren't evil (presumably other profit seeking corporations are evil). And the open source fanatics lap it up. Take a look over at Groklaw, for example, and it's all a big conspiracy to discredit Google. So, I would change "[not] completely blameless" to "is completely hypocritical", then you'd be right on. I think Free and Open Source is great for many things, and proprietary works too, just don't blow smoke up my butt and tell me it's a rim job.
I wouldn't leave Google completely blameless here. They knew who they were dealing with. They need eyeballs to sell (ad business) so they made their bed. Same reason why the software marketplace on android sucks, they designed it for their bottom line (eyeballs). They aren't making a product for people to use, they're making a channel to deliver a product (eyeballs) to their customers (advertisers).Except Google makes a big deal about how they support open source and aren't evil (presumably other profit seeking corporations are evil). And the open source fanatics lap it up. Take a look over at Groklaw, for example, and it's all a big conspiracy to discredit Google. So, I would change "[not] completely blameless" to "is completely hypocritical", then you'd be right on. I think Free and Open Source is great for many things, and proprietary works too, just don't blow smoke up my butt and tell me it's a rim job.
totoum
Apr 10, 04:17 AM
But later he gets called out from another speculating Apple is making a very significant change and distancing Final Cut from the real 'pro' users, dumbing it down, etc, and the guy who has seen it gets real quiet.. He is asked if he will update his editing studio's workflow to the new Final Cut, and he basically danced around the question, pleaded the 5th, and made it pretty clear that he is holding back some reservations about how the industry will adapt to the changes.
Yep,saw that,as well as the "faster horse" quote meaning that there will be disapointed people.
I think he refused to commit to switching to the new version because I'm betting on anything tape based being taken out,that seems like a very apple thing to do but as they mentioned later most huge production companies are not ready for that.
Also probably means no blu-ray in sight and no update to dvd studio pro.
I really do hope they switch to a halfway decent H.264 encoder though.
Yep,saw that,as well as the "faster horse" quote meaning that there will be disapointed people.
I think he refused to commit to switching to the new version because I'm betting on anything tape based being taken out,that seems like a very apple thing to do but as they mentioned later most huge production companies are not ready for that.
Also probably means no blu-ray in sight and no update to dvd studio pro.
I really do hope they switch to a halfway decent H.264 encoder though.
orkle
Nov 29, 06:53 AM
The iTunes Store wouldn't be where it is today if Universal Music hadn't been so forthcoming with getting their catalogue on there.
notabadname
Mar 31, 06:35 PM
What a concept, Apple should consider this concept, for a more consistent and stable OS . . .
oh, they do
oh, they do
akac
Mar 26, 09:40 PM
Details found here :
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-removes-Samba-from-Mac-OS-X-10-7-Server-1215179.html
Gist of it :
- less features than Samba
- no more Active Directory Services
- Just file sharing now.
Samba developers have also noted that the true motive behind this move might not be the GPLv3 per say, but a more global move away from the GPL. Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Anyway, Samba v4 could have given them all the "features" they implemented and much more. Their own in-house version won't necessarily be better just because it's written by Apple. The Samba team does a great job with what Microsoft puts out as documentation (if you can even call it that).
Note that from the article, this change only impacts OS X Server. The client was already an in-house solution.
Although from my understanding from people using this today, the Apple implementation is dramatically faster than the Samba implementation. Just like WebKit started from KHTML and had fewer features than Mozilla, its ended up being the best browser engine out there. Leaner. Meaner. Faster. But it took time. Apple's SMB/CIFS implementation is going the same route. Now I've read elsewhere that it DOES support Active Directory. And elsewhere that it doesn't. The Preview version of Lion was 2 months old by the time devs got it, so its also possible that those reports are all just wrong in as far as what works and what is supposed to work (i.e. it may support AD, but bugs cause it not to work well or at all on some installs).
You will be foolish to wait around unless you want to get buried in the on-slaught of new and improved apps to take advantage of Lion from day one.
Exactly. I know of at least one major app right now that is going to go Lion only...
Windows manages to run legacy apps still. Even if you do have to resort to using the virtual machine they've called 'XP Mode.'
Fortunately, my one and only PPC program does indeed have an intel version that I wasn't aware of, so I'm fine.
You just gave the perfect answer. Using a VM. Run SL in a VM for Rosetta apps :)
It's needed for me.
Look, Rosetta isn't a part of OS X by default. If it is installed, then it is needed by the user, and thus isn't "crap." If the user doesn't need it, it won't be installed. For most users, it will be "cut out." I don't see why having the option there for people who need it stifles progress.
Actually its not a small piece. Its a big piece. EVERY OS X Library has to be provided in PowerPC code as well as x86. So Rosetta itself, by itself is tiny. But all the extra libraries that make up OS X is huge. And that's why its cut out.
In SL, it shipped with all the libraries, but not the Rosetta piece. So it was a simple install of just the Rosetta piece.
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-removes-Samba-from-Mac-OS-X-10-7-Server-1215179.html
Gist of it :
- less features than Samba
- no more Active Directory Services
- Just file sharing now.
Samba developers have also noted that the true motive behind this move might not be the GPLv3 per say, but a more global move away from the GPL. Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Anyway, Samba v4 could have given them all the "features" they implemented and much more. Their own in-house version won't necessarily be better just because it's written by Apple. The Samba team does a great job with what Microsoft puts out as documentation (if you can even call it that).
Note that from the article, this change only impacts OS X Server. The client was already an in-house solution.
Although from my understanding from people using this today, the Apple implementation is dramatically faster than the Samba implementation. Just like WebKit started from KHTML and had fewer features than Mozilla, its ended up being the best browser engine out there. Leaner. Meaner. Faster. But it took time. Apple's SMB/CIFS implementation is going the same route. Now I've read elsewhere that it DOES support Active Directory. And elsewhere that it doesn't. The Preview version of Lion was 2 months old by the time devs got it, so its also possible that those reports are all just wrong in as far as what works and what is supposed to work (i.e. it may support AD, but bugs cause it not to work well or at all on some installs).
You will be foolish to wait around unless you want to get buried in the on-slaught of new and improved apps to take advantage of Lion from day one.
Exactly. I know of at least one major app right now that is going to go Lion only...
Windows manages to run legacy apps still. Even if you do have to resort to using the virtual machine they've called 'XP Mode.'
Fortunately, my one and only PPC program does indeed have an intel version that I wasn't aware of, so I'm fine.
You just gave the perfect answer. Using a VM. Run SL in a VM for Rosetta apps :)
It's needed for me.
Look, Rosetta isn't a part of OS X by default. If it is installed, then it is needed by the user, and thus isn't "crap." If the user doesn't need it, it won't be installed. For most users, it will be "cut out." I don't see why having the option there for people who need it stifles progress.
Actually its not a small piece. Its a big piece. EVERY OS X Library has to be provided in PowerPC code as well as x86. So Rosetta itself, by itself is tiny. But all the extra libraries that make up OS X is huge. And that's why its cut out.
In SL, it shipped with all the libraries, but not the Rosetta piece. So it was a simple install of just the Rosetta piece.
ChickenSwartz
Aug 26, 06:18 PM
I have just ordered a mbp :( It wasn't supposed to ship until Monday but it shipped early :( If the rumors are true will I be able to send it back and get the new one? Has anyone had any experience in returning unwanted stuff to apple as time is not on my side (leave for uni on the 16th Sept)
I never have but I hear it is pretty easy if you DON'T OPEN THE BOX.
The only change is likely to be the cpu. The rest of the MBP will probably be kept the same and if you look at the yonah vs merom benchmarks at places like AnandTech, it probably isn't worth sending it back.
It has been rumored that there might some minor changes to the computer such as easilly removable HD, differnt latch, as said above. But more importantly, I hope they bump the clock speeds and include 1GB RAM as standard on lowest MBP model for the same price.
I never have but I hear it is pretty easy if you DON'T OPEN THE BOX.
The only change is likely to be the cpu. The rest of the MBP will probably be kept the same and if you look at the yonah vs merom benchmarks at places like AnandTech, it probably isn't worth sending it back.
It has been rumored that there might some minor changes to the computer such as easilly removable HD, differnt latch, as said above. But more importantly, I hope they bump the clock speeds and include 1GB RAM as standard on lowest MBP model for the same price.
Cachiro
Apr 6, 04:55 PM
[QUOTE=
Xoom.... I say Fail.
[/QUOTE]
Popeye, you hit a nail on the head.
:D
Xoom.... I say Fail.
[/QUOTE]
Popeye, you hit a nail on the head.
:D
*LTD*
Mar 26, 07:13 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
How does Rosetta hold back forward progress exactly? It's just small extension for the OS. It's not like it's Classic.
It's crap that is no longer needed.
Stuff that can be cut out but isn't, holds back progress. Progress = cutting and more cutting and then perfecting what's left over.
Rosetta isn't necessary to run today's apps (or even apps released over the past 2-3 years.) So it needs to go.
How does Rosetta hold back forward progress exactly? It's just small extension for the OS. It's not like it's Classic.
It's crap that is no longer needed.
Stuff that can be cut out but isn't, holds back progress. Progress = cutting and more cutting and then perfecting what's left over.
Rosetta isn't necessary to run today's apps (or even apps released over the past 2-3 years.) So it needs to go.
epitaphic
Aug 18, 11:46 PM
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
Nym
Nov 29, 11:28 AM
I don't listen to anything that comes from that Universal Artists list shown above :)
So Universal Music Group must have received something in the region of $112 so far from Zune sales.
AHAHAHAHAHA
You my friend, sound like a socialist...
More like a Capitalist, he thinks they should get money, profit logic.
Universal is being greedy, they are entitled to 1$ per iPod the same way as I am, because after all, I'm advertising for Apple when I'm holding it in my hand right? It's just stupid beyond everything I've heard! And the artists will be the last ones to get even a glimpe of the money that M$ is gonna pay Universal (7$ ??).
If by any chance Apple would give in to Universal, every crap Record Label would start requiring the same fee and one day we'll have "the new iPod Nano, starting at 500$" :)
iPoop on Record Labels :D
So Universal Music Group must have received something in the region of $112 so far from Zune sales.
AHAHAHAHAHA
You my friend, sound like a socialist...
More like a Capitalist, he thinks they should get money, profit logic.
Universal is being greedy, they are entitled to 1$ per iPod the same way as I am, because after all, I'm advertising for Apple when I'm holding it in my hand right? It's just stupid beyond everything I've heard! And the artists will be the last ones to get even a glimpe of the money that M$ is gonna pay Universal (7$ ??).
If by any chance Apple would give in to Universal, every crap Record Label would start requiring the same fee and one day we'll have "the new iPod Nano, starting at 500$" :)
iPoop on Record Labels :D
lfc
Apr 6, 11:06 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?
Umm... You do realise clock speed is not everything don't you?
I hope you don't think a C2D is better then a SB Core i5
You definitely dont know what your talking about.
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?
Umm... You do realise clock speed is not everything don't you?
I hope you don't think a C2D is better then a SB Core i5
You definitely dont know what your talking about.
