AppliedVisual
Oct 20, 02:36 PM
So the high end will no longer be at 3ghz?
How hard can an extra 333mhz be to attain? Especially with these cool-running Intel chips.
It will come, just not with the initial production models. With the quad-core chips, Intel is already running into FSB bandwidth issues as it is. The Clovertowns are essentially dual Woodcrest CPUs stuck on the same die, sharing the same FSB and communication between the first duo-core CPU and the second duo-core CPU on that die must travel onto the FSB and into the other CPU. Between the two cores that are linked directly, data sharing can be handled through the L1 cache. So, depending on your application, the 8-core may be no better than a 4-core system -- if what your'e doing is already maxing out your CPU bus bandwidth. Somwhere down the road as Intel shifts to its 45nm production process and fully integrates all 4 cores on a single CPU (and later, 8 cores on die), we will see massive improvements in inter-core bandwidth. They will have to step-up on the FSB bandwidth though... Possibly by increasing the MHz, but more than likely we'll see some of that combined with increasing the width of the data path and possibly using multiple parallel FSB designs. ...Going to be interesting, that's for sure. And with Intel's new process and the plans for continuously jamming more cores onto a die at higher speeds, I think we're in for a real ride over the next 5 years or so.
How hard can an extra 333mhz be to attain? Especially with these cool-running Intel chips.
It will come, just not with the initial production models. With the quad-core chips, Intel is already running into FSB bandwidth issues as it is. The Clovertowns are essentially dual Woodcrest CPUs stuck on the same die, sharing the same FSB and communication between the first duo-core CPU and the second duo-core CPU on that die must travel onto the FSB and into the other CPU. Between the two cores that are linked directly, data sharing can be handled through the L1 cache. So, depending on your application, the 8-core may be no better than a 4-core system -- if what your'e doing is already maxing out your CPU bus bandwidth. Somwhere down the road as Intel shifts to its 45nm production process and fully integrates all 4 cores on a single CPU (and later, 8 cores on die), we will see massive improvements in inter-core bandwidth. They will have to step-up on the FSB bandwidth though... Possibly by increasing the MHz, but more than likely we'll see some of that combined with increasing the width of the data path and possibly using multiple parallel FSB designs. ...Going to be interesting, that's for sure. And with Intel's new process and the plans for continuously jamming more cores onto a die at higher speeds, I think we're in for a real ride over the next 5 years or so.
Play Ultimate
Sep 12, 04:25 PM
I just hope Apple isn't going totally consumer and forgetting the computers!
WHAT!?!??!?
They just released a new 24" iMac last week and updated the others.
:eek:
WHAT!?!??!?
They just released a new 24" iMac last week and updated the others.
:eek:
Porchland
Sep 20, 09:46 AM
Oh please, yes. For me, iTV will only truly be the final piece of the jigsaw if I can also watch my recorded (and possibly live) EyeTV content through it.
A hook-up between Apple and Elgato sounds the most natural thing. Elgato should continue to make hardware for all the various TV standards (terrestrial / cable / sat / digital / etc etc), but perhaps use some Apple desigers to make their boxes a bit more "Apple-looking". Then, Apple can take the EyeTV 2.x software and integrate it with iTunes.
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
Regds
SL
A lot of these questions come down to whether Apple is going to market iTV as a satellite/cable killer.
Scenario A: iTV is a way to watch movies and shows in your iTunes library and (for $1.99) watch an episode of a show you forgot to DVR or that you just really like and want to own.
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
Scenario A doesn't really give me anything I don't already have, and I'm not going to pay $299 for the privilege of buying movies for $10 that I can PPV for $4. But Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
A hook-up between Apple and Elgato sounds the most natural thing. Elgato should continue to make hardware for all the various TV standards (terrestrial / cable / sat / digital / etc etc), but perhaps use some Apple desigers to make their boxes a bit more "Apple-looking". Then, Apple can take the EyeTV 2.x software and integrate it with iTunes.
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
Regds
SL
A lot of these questions come down to whether Apple is going to market iTV as a satellite/cable killer.
Scenario A: iTV is a way to watch movies and shows in your iTunes library and (for $1.99) watch an episode of a show you forgot to DVR or that you just really like and want to own.
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
Scenario A doesn't really give me anything I don't already have, and I'm not going to pay $299 for the privilege of buying movies for $10 that I can PPV for $4. But Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
kas23
May 5, 11:04 AM
I get about 0-1 dropped calls per day. That said, only about half of my incoming calls get through. The rest go straight to voicemail (so I am told).
Apple OC
Apr 23, 10:57 PM
Perhaps you should define atheism for me.
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
You are correct ... there are no Gods ... zero ... nada ... zilch.
I am not sure what all that other rambling on you were going on about ... most of it made no sense
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
You are correct ... there are no Gods ... zero ... nada ... zilch.
I am not sure what all that other rambling on you were going on about ... most of it made no sense
Clive At Five
Sep 21, 10:23 AM
Contrary to what many people are saying here, I don't think PVR is Apple's stratedgy. PVR woud have to be based on a subscription model, and Apple has shown us for years now that it won't have it that way.
First of all, with subscription models, Apple doesn't have a constant income vs content distributed ratio. They'll lose money on those who use it a lot and only *maybe* gain on those who don't. This is as opposed to the current model where Apple earns a lot of money on those who use it a lot, not as much on those who don't, but are least it's the same rate, no matter who you are. Non-subscription models offer more freedom.
I'm pretty sure that if you want to watch a show, Apple wants you to buy it from them at full price. That way they don't have to deal with whoever might be watching a ton of shows vs those who aren't. They ensure their profitability this way.
...and when it comes to iTunes Music, their profit margins are slim to begin with.
-Clive
First of all, with subscription models, Apple doesn't have a constant income vs content distributed ratio. They'll lose money on those who use it a lot and only *maybe* gain on those who don't. This is as opposed to the current model where Apple earns a lot of money on those who use it a lot, not as much on those who don't, but are least it's the same rate, no matter who you are. Non-subscription models offer more freedom.
I'm pretty sure that if you want to watch a show, Apple wants you to buy it from them at full price. That way they don't have to deal with whoever might be watching a ton of shows vs those who aren't. They ensure their profitability this way.
...and when it comes to iTunes Music, their profit margins are slim to begin with.
-Clive
emotion
Sep 24, 03:52 AM
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
Mac Mini? I suspect that's exactly what Apple wants to drive sales of.
I know, they need to be cheaper.
Mac Mini? I suspect that's exactly what Apple wants to drive sales of.
I know, they need to be cheaper.
Michaelgtrusa
May 2, 10:07 AM
Be careful.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:44 AM
Exactly! Desktop shipments still outpace laptop shipments. Desktops and Laptops will continue to hold top market share, while inevitably tablets will cut into that margin and find a nice place and sit. Desktops have been around since the beginning.. and every challenger to it has never surpassed the market share. Laptops, Netbooks, Tablets, smartphones... whatever.. people still need desktops and laptops for prolonged productivity.
Actually, phones outsell PCs now.
But the point of Eras is that each one is bigger than the one that came before it because it expands the market for users:
Mainframes had a limited market.
Minicomputers had a larger market, while mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
PCs had a larger market yet, while minicomputers and mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
Tablets will have an even larger market yet, while PCs, minicomputers and mainframes continue to be around for those who need them.
Actually, phones outsell PCs now.
But the point of Eras is that each one is bigger than the one that came before it because it expands the market for users:
Mainframes had a limited market.
Minicomputers had a larger market, while mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
PCs had a larger market yet, while minicomputers and mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
Tablets will have an even larger market yet, while PCs, minicomputers and mainframes continue to be around for those who need them.
Mord
Jul 13, 10:36 AM
every vendor, dell, HP, gateway ect offer workstations with single xeons, it's a very common practice because it makes business sense.
acearchie
Apr 13, 03:25 AM
I know they are linked on the front page but have a look at the screenshots http://www.loopinsight.com/2011/04/12/first-screenshots-of-final-cut-pro-x/
It looks good and has installed a bit more faith in me having a look at something more high-res.
I agree with Lethal, when Apple updates there website (probably closer to release) everyone will get their feature list and calm down! Plus I want to see what more it has to offer!
It looks good and has installed a bit more faith in me having a look at something more high-res.
I agree with Lethal, when Apple updates there website (probably closer to release) everyone will get their feature list and calm down! Plus I want to see what more it has to offer!
Quu
Apr 12, 11:18 PM
Pretty awesome update in my opinion.
OllyW
Apr 28, 11:21 AM
Where are you getting 3.5% from? It's higher than that without counting iPad.
It's the Q1 2010 share from the chart in the first post.
It's the Q1 2010 share from the chart in the first post.
Edge100
Apr 15, 01:18 PM
Yeah, I was waiting for that one. It's pretty low-rent as far as fallacies go, I'm not sure why it is trotted out as often as it is. It's always used to argue stupid things like Hitler's religious beliefs represent the truest form of Christianity, and if you don't believe so, you're violating this sacred "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
No TRUE circle is square! Yeah, that one's true. You can't torpedo a well-defined institution by finding an example of someone not living up to its rules.
The point is that you don't get to redefine "Christian" to suit your argument.
Hitler was a Christian. That is a fact. That doesn't mean that Christianity is equivalent to Nazism and fascism. That would, indeed, be a fallacy.
But again, this is obfuscation. You can't explain away bad things done by Christians by redefining "Christian".
No TRUE circle is square! Yeah, that one's true. You can't torpedo a well-defined institution by finding an example of someone not living up to its rules.
The point is that you don't get to redefine "Christian" to suit your argument.
Hitler was a Christian. That is a fact. That doesn't mean that Christianity is equivalent to Nazism and fascism. That would, indeed, be a fallacy.
But again, this is obfuscation. You can't explain away bad things done by Christians by redefining "Christian".
Abulia
Sep 26, 06:41 PM
I think beyond a certain level all these Cores are only going to be good for building up your ePeen, speaking of which where can I get one? :D
Nevermind they are only 1.66Ghz each, there are 8 of them!
It's not the speed of your cores that makes you a man, it's how many you have! :D
Nevermind they are only 1.66Ghz each, there are 8 of them!
It's not the speed of your cores that makes you a man, it's how many you have! :D
MacBoobsPro
Oct 26, 10:36 AM
16 cores in 2007
32 cores in 2008
64 cores in 2009
128 cores in 2010
You want to wait 'til 2010 at the soonest? :rolleyes:
4 years. Cant wait. My emailing exploits will just zip along.
How many chips would it span though?
32 cores in 2008
64 cores in 2009
128 cores in 2010
You want to wait 'til 2010 at the soonest? :rolleyes:
4 years. Cant wait. My emailing exploits will just zip along.
How many chips would it span though?
mr. who?
Apr 13, 07:48 AM
What are the chances that Logic X will be released around the same time?
Would be awseome, but I doubt it.
Would be awseome, but I doubt it.
econgeek
Apr 12, 11:14 PM
Adobe Photoshop and After Effects are not 'pro'
We're talking video editing software, and you didn't mention Photoshop, but you bring it up now.
I was expressing my personal opinion, and yes, I think Premier and After Effects are absolute junk. I know many people love them and after sufficient training can get good stuff out of them, much like people love windows and are able to make it work.
But I have trouble taking anyone seriously as an "expert" who argues that Windows, with its terrible UI-- is "professional" while the mac is "a toy". Though of course, back in the day, many did so.
I feel the same way about After Effects (And Premier to a lesser extent). They are so poorly designed that to call them superior makes me question the motivations and perspective (and professionalism) of the person doing so-- as a blanket statement. Making more specific statements, however, I'll likely not dispute. (Eg: a particular algorithm being better, sure.)
A professional seeks tools that allow them to accomplish the job in question with minimum wasted effort, time and resources. The low usability of Adobe solutions (in video) undermines this goal. Seeing somethign that allows one to more quikly develop a professional product as being "toylike" *because* it is more efficient, in favor of poor quality tools, is not a perspective that I associate with those of a professional-- who is more concerned with the end result than protecting sunk educational costs invested to overcome terrible usability.
We're talking video editing software, and you didn't mention Photoshop, but you bring it up now.
I was expressing my personal opinion, and yes, I think Premier and After Effects are absolute junk. I know many people love them and after sufficient training can get good stuff out of them, much like people love windows and are able to make it work.
But I have trouble taking anyone seriously as an "expert" who argues that Windows, with its terrible UI-- is "professional" while the mac is "a toy". Though of course, back in the day, many did so.
I feel the same way about After Effects (And Premier to a lesser extent). They are so poorly designed that to call them superior makes me question the motivations and perspective (and professionalism) of the person doing so-- as a blanket statement. Making more specific statements, however, I'll likely not dispute. (Eg: a particular algorithm being better, sure.)
A professional seeks tools that allow them to accomplish the job in question with minimum wasted effort, time and resources. The low usability of Adobe solutions (in video) undermines this goal. Seeing somethign that allows one to more quikly develop a professional product as being "toylike" *because* it is more efficient, in favor of poor quality tools, is not a perspective that I associate with those of a professional-- who is more concerned with the end result than protecting sunk educational costs invested to overcome terrible usability.
wnurse
Mar 19, 11:02 PM
No no, I don't think people get it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
No that is not true. If you had read my previous post to this post, you would have seen where i said that your copy of itms would have to send a key to the itms server. Each computer would send a unique key so the song cannot play on any other computer other than the one that sent the key. This is not technically challenging, not like building a rocket ship or anything. I could do it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
No that is not true. If you had read my previous post to this post, you would have seen where i said that your copy of itms would have to send a key to the itms server. Each computer would send a unique key so the song cannot play on any other computer other than the one that sent the key. This is not technically challenging, not like building a rocket ship or anything. I could do it.
Cyrax
Apr 6, 01:32 PM
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
Those programs are the ones you would put on your Dock.
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
Those programs are the ones you would put on your Dock.
iJohnHenry
Apr 24, 10:55 AM
Is it fear? If I admit this is BS, I go to hell? Simple ignorance?
Yes, and insecurity, self-delusion (we are the centre of the Universe line of thinking), control, etc. These have all been expounded on in previous threads.
6,000 years is nothing, the mere blink of a eye, if they will but see.
Man's advancement (good and bad) has been nothing short of miraculous in the last Millennium. I'd like to stick around, but it ain't gonna happen.
Yes, and insecurity, self-delusion (we are the centre of the Universe line of thinking), control, etc. These have all been expounded on in previous threads.
6,000 years is nothing, the mere blink of a eye, if they will but see.
Man's advancement (good and bad) has been nothing short of miraculous in the last Millennium. I'd like to stick around, but it ain't gonna happen.
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:11 PM
What are you talking about? Don't blame your ignorance on semantics. Try understanding what you read first.
If you are talking about an unmarried straight couple, then yes, you can have same-sex sex and it's "just as OK", i.e., equally not OK.
And the difference is that the heterosexual couple can get married, while the homosexual couple can't. And that is an inequality that your church has helped to create.
If you are talking about an unmarried straight couple, then yes, you can have same-sex sex and it's "just as OK", i.e., equally not OK.
And the difference is that the heterosexual couple can get married, while the homosexual couple can't. And that is an inequality that your church has helped to create.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 16, 12:33 AM
This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2MVcAZnowo), uploaded to YouTube yesterday, has some nuclear scientists from the University of Michigan discussing the situation in Japan as they see it. They do not seem to think that a Chernobyl-level of radiation emission incident is likely, but a large but lesser radiation leak of is still possible.
The situation is still far from stable, and as for the future reconstruction of the plant - I don't think that's an issue anyone cares about at the moment, efforts are rightly focused on stabilizing the reactor cores. But based on the structural damage to the plant and the subsequent damage wrought by the malfunctioning reactors, I think there is a good chance that several of the reactor buildings are total losses, and the remaining ones might be beyond economic repair.
At the moment though, all bets are off. It's not looking good.
The situation is still far from stable, and as for the future reconstruction of the plant - I don't think that's an issue anyone cares about at the moment, efforts are rightly focused on stabilizing the reactor cores. But based on the structural damage to the plant and the subsequent damage wrought by the malfunctioning reactors, I think there is a good chance that several of the reactor buildings are total losses, and the remaining ones might be beyond economic repair.
At the moment though, all bets are off. It's not looking good.
Warbrain
Sep 26, 07:43 AM
I'll be holding my Mac Pro purchase off for a while...
Why? You'll be waiting for a bit of a long time...
Why? You'll be waiting for a bit of a long time...