blubyu
Apr 11, 11:46 AM
Hi
With all the Android phones coming out and manufacturers having no specific cycle, the iPhone is really out of date already!
iPhone 1 - 2G
iPhone 2 - adds 3G
iPhone 3 - adds 3GS
Therefore the above three phones are all 'old' regarding what was released around the same time.
iPhone 4 - will be about 18 months old by the time the iPhone 5 comes out.
People will loose interest in Apple iPhones with so many other new releases coming out on a regular basis.
Thanks for this. I haven't had a good laugh on here for awhile now.
With all the Android phones coming out and manufacturers having no specific cycle, the iPhone is really out of date already!
iPhone 1 - 2G
iPhone 2 - adds 3G
iPhone 3 - adds 3GS
Therefore the above three phones are all 'old' regarding what was released around the same time.
iPhone 4 - will be about 18 months old by the time the iPhone 5 comes out.
People will loose interest in Apple iPhones with so many other new releases coming out on a regular basis.
Thanks for this. I haven't had a good laugh on here for awhile now.
daddycool
Jul 21, 07:03 AM
Kentsfield? Sounds like a Simpsons parody name (and a good one) or a cigarette. Where/how did they think this up?
4God
Jul 14, 11:00 PM
Power supplies produce a lot of heat. It makes great sense according to simply the most basic laws of thermodynamics.
Could you please explain this basic law of thermodynamics and I mean more extensively than "heat rises."
I always thought that the power supply was on top because of the heat generated by it. Since heat rises, it wouldn't pass over the rest of the computer on its way out. I still agree with you about the weight part though.
Bill the TaxMan
Well since the current G5's have a seperate chamber for the power supply, I guess that wouldn't matter. Also, isn't the air cooler at the bottom than at the already warm top? Go figure....
Could you please explain this basic law of thermodynamics and I mean more extensively than "heat rises."
I always thought that the power supply was on top because of the heat generated by it. Since heat rises, it wouldn't pass over the rest of the computer on its way out. I still agree with you about the weight part though.
Bill the TaxMan
Well since the current G5's have a seperate chamber for the power supply, I guess that wouldn't matter. Also, isn't the air cooler at the bottom than at the already warm top? Go figure....
wizard
Mar 26, 10:35 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)
It is pretty incredible that the ignorance around Mac OS releases never stops. For one thing if you loose data on a computer, the only person to blame is the one staring at you in the mirror.
Even the whine about nothing worthwhile for the user is a bit old and reflects what we heard about SL. Yet SL on my early 2008 MBP was a drastic improvement for the user right out of the box and just got better with each update. User facing features are the only reason to update, fixes to underlying facilities can go a long way to justifying the software update.
As to the server integration, it hasn't and never will be a product worth $500. It is great that Apple is adding support to the base install but people need to realize a few things. One is that Mac OS is UNIX, people need to get that through their heads. Thus Apples server product only really adds in what is already seen in many UNIX intallations in a base install. Speaking of which much of that functionality is well established open source. Second the pricing of "server" software seems to be tailored to fit the mentality of the corporate world, where they feel they need to pay big bucks for something trivial. It is no wonder that Linux as established itself as a server OS in the SOHO world and at some of the more forward thinking larger corporations. As others have pointed out the basics of UNIX have been around for ages now, very little new territory is being cleared here, thus little justification for up charges on server software.
Finally it is a bit cowardly to avoid the future because you see nothing of value there for you personally. It is frightenly similar to the attitude seen in those that cut their own wrists.
It is pretty incredible that the ignorance around Mac OS releases never stops. For one thing if you loose data on a computer, the only person to blame is the one staring at you in the mirror.
Even the whine about nothing worthwhile for the user is a bit old and reflects what we heard about SL. Yet SL on my early 2008 MBP was a drastic improvement for the user right out of the box and just got better with each update. User facing features are the only reason to update, fixes to underlying facilities can go a long way to justifying the software update.
As to the server integration, it hasn't and never will be a product worth $500. It is great that Apple is adding support to the base install but people need to realize a few things. One is that Mac OS is UNIX, people need to get that through their heads. Thus Apples server product only really adds in what is already seen in many UNIX intallations in a base install. Speaking of which much of that functionality is well established open source. Second the pricing of "server" software seems to be tailored to fit the mentality of the corporate world, where they feel they need to pay big bucks for something trivial. It is no wonder that Linux as established itself as a server OS in the SOHO world and at some of the more forward thinking larger corporations. As others have pointed out the basics of UNIX have been around for ages now, very little new territory is being cleared here, thus little justification for up charges on server software.
Finally it is a bit cowardly to avoid the future because you see nothing of value there for you personally. It is frightenly similar to the attitude seen in those that cut their own wrists.
satkin2
Apr 7, 11:43 AM
I can understand the debate about graphics and processors having positive and negative affects for folks who use Airs for work etc;
But how would this affect average Mac users, the people who walk into the store, see iLife and the other standard Mac features, and walk out with a MacBook Air.
How would it impact running iTunes. From a graphics perspective, how would it impact the export of say an hours home made movie in iMovie? (Quite a long process on my 08 Macbook).
But how would this affect average Mac users, the people who walk into the store, see iLife and the other standard Mac features, and walk out with a MacBook Air.
How would it impact running iTunes. From a graphics perspective, how would it impact the export of say an hours home made movie in iMovie? (Quite a long process on my 08 Macbook).
Menopause
Mar 22, 12:58 PM
"The first iteration of Galaxy Tab 10.1 measured in at 246.2 x 170.4 x 10.9 mm and weighed 599g; this new, slimmer version is 256.6 x 172.9 x 8.6 mm and 595g."
We lost 4 grams WAHAHAHAHA !
We lost 4 grams WAHAHAHAHA !
yoak
Apr 6, 07:31 AM
Yup I guess as we deliver full "uncompressed" HD via HDCAM SR mainly our needs a rather different. To me Blu-ray is the worst of all formats fairly big cumbersome files that are still to compressed to be useful to any one professionally, and not small enough to simply chuck around on thumb drives.....
We don�t even have to go to HDCAM SR for delivery anymore. On our latest project we just brought a hard drive with the masters (in ProRes) and did a transfer right at the broadcast facility. That was nice.
I do see your point on the blu-ray file size though.
But when the promo department at the same broadcaster wanted to look at the programs to plan the promotion of the series it would be nice to drop them a blu-ray, knowing they would be able to watch it on any player.
EDIT: I do have to say it�s not often I miss the need for blu-ray, but it certainly do happen
We don�t even have to go to HDCAM SR for delivery anymore. On our latest project we just brought a hard drive with the masters (in ProRes) and did a transfer right at the broadcast facility. That was nice.
I do see your point on the blu-ray file size though.
But when the promo department at the same broadcaster wanted to look at the programs to plan the promotion of the series it would be nice to drop them a blu-ray, knowing they would be able to watch it on any player.
EDIT: I do have to say it�s not often I miss the need for blu-ray, but it certainly do happen
awesomebase
Mar 31, 07:08 PM
Google's "openness" reminds me of the days when people got all excited about being able to use different fonts and font sizes... sure it is exciting to see the possibilities and to be able to "customize" your documents, etc., but in the end, you only end up using a hand full of them (despite thousands of them being available), and most of what is being used is STILL what was the default choices back then.
Just like a kid that thinks they're going to be greater and better than those older than them because they know better; well, surprise, surprise... Google has turned out to be worse than IBM or Microsoft or Apple ever was. The deal with them will just keep getting worse and worse until people come up with genuine alternatives to their constant lying and deceptiveness (oh, yes, picking up 10M wi-fi SSIDs was purely accidental...).
I don't blame them for having to switch gears on this... I blame them for not being able to see 5 mins in front of their face on this issue (like so many other things) and insisting that "they're" correct every time it is obvious to everyone outside their company that they're not...
Just like a kid that thinks they're going to be greater and better than those older than them because they know better; well, surprise, surprise... Google has turned out to be worse than IBM or Microsoft or Apple ever was. The deal with them will just keep getting worse and worse until people come up with genuine alternatives to their constant lying and deceptiveness (oh, yes, picking up 10M wi-fi SSIDs was purely accidental...).
I don't blame them for having to switch gears on this... I blame them for not being able to see 5 mins in front of their face on this issue (like so many other things) and insisting that "they're" correct every time it is obvious to everyone outside their company that they're not...
ninethirty
Aug 6, 03:15 PM
You have absolutely no chance of winning any legal battle based on what you've described here.
Also, while you're whining about who stole what from who, maybe change your 'save' icon on your site. It's nearly identical to Apples.
As Apple applied for the trademark, it will not be approved.
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
Also, while you're whining about who stole what from who, maybe change your 'save' icon on your site. It's nearly identical to Apples.
As Apple applied for the trademark, it will not be approved.
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
triceretops
Apr 27, 09:13 AM
And assume you go to a place you have been a month ago, wouldn't having the database speed things up when you return to that location a month later?
(Though I agree the effect will be very minor, as soon as you land with a plane, the iPhone will start populating that database, thus having the data from a month ago will only be relevant if you need location data right away after landing.)
How else are you going to check in on Facebook?:p
My layover at some airports is only 45 minutes.
(Though I agree the effect will be very minor, as soon as you land with a plane, the iPhone will start populating that database, thus having the data from a month ago will only be relevant if you need location data right away after landing.)
How else are you going to check in on Facebook?:p
My layover at some airports is only 45 minutes.
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.
shawnce
Aug 26, 03:25 PM
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 Yet iBooks and PowerBooks (PPC based systems) are part of this most recent battery recall (and a prior one)... it has nothing to do with switching to Intel. Apple has been using standard commodity parts in their systems for a VERY long time now.
...and while you are at the site why not look at some non-Intel based systems...
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=Titanium_PowerBook_G4
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=PowerBook_12%22
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=Ibook
Same thing with the batteries....
OS X can run on PPC and X86. Apple should target X86 to consumers and PPC for pro's Yet iBooks and PowerBooks (PPC based systems) are part of this most recent battery recall (and a prior one)... it has nothing to do with switching to Intel. Apple has been using standard commodity parts in their systems for a VERY long time now.
...and while you are at the site why not look at some non-Intel based systems...
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=Titanium_PowerBook_G4
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=PowerBook_12%22
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=Ibook
mwswami
Jul 23, 07:12 PM
That's what Kentsfield is for. It is a single quad core chip, which is expected to fit into the cheaper motherboards for Conroe instead of the much more expensive motherboards for Woodcrest.
Two recent quotes: On their earnings release, Apple said that they are on track to finish the Intel transition by the end of the year. And Intel said that Kentsfield will be available in the last quarter of this year. A single chip Woodcrest is nonsense (much more expensive than Conroe at same performance). Complete line with dual chip times dual core Woodcrest is too expensive for the cheapest mode. By waiting for Kentsfield, Apple can avoid designing two motherboards and still have quad cores.
So you don't expect the Mac Pro at WWDC?? Or only a dual core version using Conroe?
I agree single Woodcrest doesn't make sense. So we have two options for Quad core - Dual Woodcrest and single Kentsfield. Of course 2xWodcrest is going to be more expensive but I wonder by how much more. I am guessing $400. But, if you do that, you have the same motherboard across the Mac Pro (and possibly shared with XServe as well) and for that $400 you also get FB-DIMM and higher RAM ceiling. Also, the same platform can be used with Clovertown to scale to 8 core workstation early Q1'07. If Kentsfield is used then 4 core is the end of the line.
So I don't expect Mac Pro to exclusively use Conroe/Kentsfield. Either two different boards - Conroe/Kentsfield on the low end and Woodcrest/Clovertown on the high end. Or Woodcrest/Clovertown across the board. Given the reasons above, I expect it will be the latter.
Conroe deserves to be in the Apple lineup. I expect it will be in the upgraded (perhaps a larger i.e. 23") iMac. Apple may also release another desktop to fill the gap between the Mini and the Pro. That option has been discussed here as well.
Two recent quotes: On their earnings release, Apple said that they are on track to finish the Intel transition by the end of the year. And Intel said that Kentsfield will be available in the last quarter of this year. A single chip Woodcrest is nonsense (much more expensive than Conroe at same performance). Complete line with dual chip times dual core Woodcrest is too expensive for the cheapest mode. By waiting for Kentsfield, Apple can avoid designing two motherboards and still have quad cores.
So you don't expect the Mac Pro at WWDC?? Or only a dual core version using Conroe?
I agree single Woodcrest doesn't make sense. So we have two options for Quad core - Dual Woodcrest and single Kentsfield. Of course 2xWodcrest is going to be more expensive but I wonder by how much more. I am guessing $400. But, if you do that, you have the same motherboard across the Mac Pro (and possibly shared with XServe as well) and for that $400 you also get FB-DIMM and higher RAM ceiling. Also, the same platform can be used with Clovertown to scale to 8 core workstation early Q1'07. If Kentsfield is used then 4 core is the end of the line.
So I don't expect Mac Pro to exclusively use Conroe/Kentsfield. Either two different boards - Conroe/Kentsfield on the low end and Woodcrest/Clovertown on the high end. Or Woodcrest/Clovertown across the board. Given the reasons above, I expect it will be the latter.
Conroe deserves to be in the Apple lineup. I expect it will be in the upgraded (perhaps a larger i.e. 23") iMac. Apple may also release another desktop to fill the gap between the Mini and the Pro. That option has been discussed here as well.
gnasher729
Aug 17, 05:32 AM
They are comparing a 2 generations old G5 (Dual 2,5) versus a new Intel (Quad 2,6) which is not even the fastest out there. What kind of comparison is that?
If you want to know what is the fastest Mac, the comparison is no good. If you want to know whether you should upgrade your machine, the comparison makes a lot of sense. First, the 2.66 GHz Quad has the best price/performance ratio. If you start with the 2.0 GHz, you get 666 MHz more for $300, then you get another 333 MHz for a mere $800. So if you want to upgrade, the 2.66 is _the_ machine to buy. Second, there will be much less difference between a Quad G5 and a Quad Xeon. On performance critical Rosetta applications (like Photoshop) the Quad G5 will be stronger. In that case, it doesn't matter how much stronger - you won't upgrade, that is all that matters. But if you have a dual G5, then the question whether to upgrade or not is really interesting.
And we need to know whether apps use four cores or not. In many cases, changing from two threads to four threads is very easy (that is if all the threads to the same work; it is much harder if the threads do different work), but the app uses only two threads because most machines had only two CPUs. As an example, early versions of Handbrake didn't gain anything from Quad G5s; the CPUs were 50% idle all the time. People complained, and it was changed. The same thing will happen again, especially since _all_ Mac Pros have four cores.
If you want to know what is the fastest Mac, the comparison is no good. If you want to know whether you should upgrade your machine, the comparison makes a lot of sense. First, the 2.66 GHz Quad has the best price/performance ratio. If you start with the 2.0 GHz, you get 666 MHz more for $300, then you get another 333 MHz for a mere $800. So if you want to upgrade, the 2.66 is _the_ machine to buy. Second, there will be much less difference between a Quad G5 and a Quad Xeon. On performance critical Rosetta applications (like Photoshop) the Quad G5 will be stronger. In that case, it doesn't matter how much stronger - you won't upgrade, that is all that matters. But if you have a dual G5, then the question whether to upgrade or not is really interesting.
And we need to know whether apps use four cores or not. In many cases, changing from two threads to four threads is very easy (that is if all the threads to the same work; it is much harder if the threads do different work), but the app uses only two threads because most machines had only two CPUs. As an example, early versions of Handbrake didn't gain anything from Quad G5s; the CPUs were 50% idle all the time. People complained, and it was changed. The same thing will happen again, especially since _all_ Mac Pros have four cores.
chrmjenkins
Apr 6, 11:36 AM
That isn't what this story reads, and I don't think anyone but you and I have even read the actual facts supposed here.
I actually find this one of the least accurate stories ever posted on MacRumors.com for several reasons... the OP is assuming ULV in the 13" MBA. The OP is assuming that if SB IGP is good enough for MBP it's fine for MBA. There is no rumor or timeframe listing these chips especially not in the 13" MBA. It seems like it's a blatant attempt to stir up activity without any real facts, rumors, or even common knowledge about the chips used in the MBAs.
Certainly the people haven't read the story or they're somehow focusing on the 11" MBA. Sure, this would be fine for the 11" MBA in terms of CPU clock speed but even then it's a gigantic loss in Tue graphics capabilities. That leads to a problem with the author saying good enough for 13" MBP than good enough for MBA. However, the IGP clock speed used in this ULV chip will be nearly a 50% drop in graphics performance. That for me doesn't equate to if this then that...
I am disappointed with MR for even writing such a poor piece of garbage. Forget that I cannot stand the SB IGP... the assumptions made here are absurd! It definitely doesn't warrant this sort of reply from the fans of the MBA. You and I could assailed things all day, but that isn't the story written.
Given Apple's willingness to go with it on the 13", I'm inclined to go with the reasoning that they'll use it here. The argument that it will be a big step down from the 320M is kind of moot given that anyone will say you're crazy if you try to insist that a MBA should be used for anything like gaming or graphical work (read anyone as Apple). You also have to remember that the 320M is downclocked in the MBAs too compared to the 13", so the drop isn't as drastic as you state.
The combination of a lower or equal TDP, a GPU that doesn't need its own heatsink because its integrated into the CPU and the very likely prolonged battery life for the MBA, it's pretty much a done deal for the MBA.
So is that also true for the difference between SV and LV? If that is the case, the Core i7-2649M you cite above (2.3 LV chip) should be faster compared to the 2.3 i5 in the low end Pro 13?
Thanks!
He didn't quite tell the whole story. A LV and ULV chip likely went through different binning as their performance at the same settings varies because the process they are built on varies. The chips that work at the extremes (say Intel's extreme desktop processors or the lowest voltage CPUs they offer) are likely the top performers in their binning tests. Just because a chip can function as a LV doesn't mean it would meet the requirements for ULV, for example. However, if the ULV chip were to be scaled to the LV's parts speed and voltage, it would function just fine.
I actually find this one of the least accurate stories ever posted on MacRumors.com for several reasons... the OP is assuming ULV in the 13" MBA. The OP is assuming that if SB IGP is good enough for MBP it's fine for MBA. There is no rumor or timeframe listing these chips especially not in the 13" MBA. It seems like it's a blatant attempt to stir up activity without any real facts, rumors, or even common knowledge about the chips used in the MBAs.
Certainly the people haven't read the story or they're somehow focusing on the 11" MBA. Sure, this would be fine for the 11" MBA in terms of CPU clock speed but even then it's a gigantic loss in Tue graphics capabilities. That leads to a problem with the author saying good enough for 13" MBP than good enough for MBA. However, the IGP clock speed used in this ULV chip will be nearly a 50% drop in graphics performance. That for me doesn't equate to if this then that...
I am disappointed with MR for even writing such a poor piece of garbage. Forget that I cannot stand the SB IGP... the assumptions made here are absurd! It definitely doesn't warrant this sort of reply from the fans of the MBA. You and I could assailed things all day, but that isn't the story written.
Given Apple's willingness to go with it on the 13", I'm inclined to go with the reasoning that they'll use it here. The argument that it will be a big step down from the 320M is kind of moot given that anyone will say you're crazy if you try to insist that a MBA should be used for anything like gaming or graphical work (read anyone as Apple). You also have to remember that the 320M is downclocked in the MBAs too compared to the 13", so the drop isn't as drastic as you state.
The combination of a lower or equal TDP, a GPU that doesn't need its own heatsink because its integrated into the CPU and the very likely prolonged battery life for the MBA, it's pretty much a done deal for the MBA.
So is that also true for the difference between SV and LV? If that is the case, the Core i7-2649M you cite above (2.3 LV chip) should be faster compared to the 2.3 i5 in the low end Pro 13?
Thanks!
He didn't quite tell the whole story. A LV and ULV chip likely went through different binning as their performance at the same settings varies because the process they are built on varies. The chips that work at the extremes (say Intel's extreme desktop processors or the lowest voltage CPUs they offer) are likely the top performers in their binning tests. Just because a chip can function as a LV doesn't mean it would meet the requirements for ULV, for example. However, if the ULV chip were to be scaled to the LV's parts speed and voltage, it would function just fine.
LagunaSol
Apr 11, 11:52 AM
Just picked up a Atrix 4G and on my way checked out the iPhone 4 - it looks decidedly antique and bland in front of the competition
If you're going to judge "looks," the Atrix looks (and feels) like cheap junk next to the iPhone. Just like practically every other Android phone on the market. The iPhone looks like a Rolex sitting next to the Casio of the Android offerings.
Enjoy the plastic. ;)
If you're going to judge "looks," the Atrix looks (and feels) like cheap junk next to the iPhone. Just like practically every other Android phone on the market. The iPhone looks like a Rolex sitting next to the Casio of the Android offerings.
Enjoy the plastic. ;)
PCClone
Apr 25, 02:20 PM
I haven't read this lawsuit, so I don't know if they're claiming things that aren't true... but I really do not like the fact that the iPhone has a breadcrumbs database of my travels for the last 3 years!
This type of thing should not happen without users' knowledge... and it was. Or else this file would not be news!
If you didn't know this maybe you should get a trac phone.
This type of thing should not happen without users' knowledge... and it was. Or else this file would not be news!
If you didn't know this maybe you should get a trac phone.
daver969
Sep 13, 11:05 AM
A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
What I couldn't understand - I couldn't see it explained in the article - why is the dual core Mac Pro (i.e. with current Mac Pro with 2 cores disabled) faster in so many tests than the 4 core Mac Pro.
I think part of the reason so many people seem to be hung up on the "software doesn't utilize multiple cores" mantra is because benchmarks tend to test only one software component at a time. If a given app isn't multithreaded, then it doesn't benefit from multiple cores in these tests. But that doesn't mean that multiple cores don't affect the overall system speed.
What we need is some kind of a super benchmark: How fast is my computer when I'm watching a quicktime stream of Steve demoing the latest insanely great stuff, while ripping my CD collection to iTunes, while surfing complex Cnet.com pages (w/animation), and compiling the latest version of my Java app, every once in a while flipping over to Dashboard (dashboard seems to take up a lot of system resources every time I invoke it, not just on startup).
At this point I would rather push towards more cores than more raw speed in a single core, since I don't tend to wait on any single process. If something is taking a long time, like loading a page or compiling code, I switch to something else and come back later. I would much rather have the whole system retain its responsive feel than have one app finish its task a few seconds quicker.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
What I couldn't understand - I couldn't see it explained in the article - why is the dual core Mac Pro (i.e. with current Mac Pro with 2 cores disabled) faster in so many tests than the 4 core Mac Pro.
I think part of the reason so many people seem to be hung up on the "software doesn't utilize multiple cores" mantra is because benchmarks tend to test only one software component at a time. If a given app isn't multithreaded, then it doesn't benefit from multiple cores in these tests. But that doesn't mean that multiple cores don't affect the overall system speed.
What we need is some kind of a super benchmark: How fast is my computer when I'm watching a quicktime stream of Steve demoing the latest insanely great stuff, while ripping my CD collection to iTunes, while surfing complex Cnet.com pages (w/animation), and compiling the latest version of my Java app, every once in a while flipping over to Dashboard (dashboard seems to take up a lot of system resources every time I invoke it, not just on startup).
At this point I would rather push towards more cores than more raw speed in a single core, since I don't tend to wait on any single process. If something is taking a long time, like loading a page or compiling code, I switch to something else and come back later. I would much rather have the whole system retain its responsive feel than have one app finish its task a few seconds quicker.
HecubusPro
Aug 26, 06:05 PM
I'm not sure if this is old news, but I only had heard last week that the UK Dell site was listing (not selling) Core 2 Duo systems. When I heard about that, I checked the US site, but no Core 2 Duo computers were yet advertised there. Well, I checked again today, and Dell is starting to sell their Core 2 Duo desktops. I didn't see anything about estimated ship time.
It doesn't look like their notebooks are selling the new chips yet.
http://www.dell.com/content/products/results.aspx/desktops?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&~ck=anav&a=23~0~98591&navla=23~0~98591
It doesn't look like their notebooks are selling the new chips yet.
http://www.dell.com/content/products/results.aspx/desktops?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&~ck=anav&a=23~0~98591&navla=23~0~98591
Ahheck01
Apr 5, 06:40 PM
++, finally!
I'm hoping they sell it on the App store. I prefer the licensing management and model on there. (Although 50GB might be a problem!!)
4GB download with in-app purchases for content would be my guess.
I'm hoping they sell it on the App store. I prefer the licensing management and model on there. (Although 50GB might be a problem!!)
4GB download with in-app purchases for content would be my guess.
MrCrowbar
Jul 20, 03:22 PM
But what about the MacBook!! *weeps*
I guess Macbooks will get Merom as soon as Merom is cheaper than the current Yonah and the Yonah Macbooks are sold out. And that might be pretty soon actually. By the way, Merom is pin compatible so Apple can just swap Ypnah for Merom. The user will have a hard time to do this, as the processor in Macbooks are soldered on. But in iMacs, no problemo.
I guess Macbooks will get Merom as soon as Merom is cheaper than the current Yonah and the Yonah Macbooks are sold out. And that might be pretty soon actually. By the way, Merom is pin compatible so Apple can just swap Ypnah for Merom. The user will have a hard time to do this, as the processor in Macbooks are soldered on. But in iMacs, no problemo.
aiongiant
Aug 11, 06:33 PM
wooooo
yea! i was gonna buy the Sony K800 but now i'll wait a bit longer if the iPhone is really coming out casue i want one!
i just bought the Mac Pro thought so a Sept/Oct release is jsut enough for me work my ass off so i can afford the iPhone :D
yea! i was gonna buy the Sony K800 but now i'll wait a bit longer if the iPhone is really coming out casue i want one!
i just bought the Mac Pro thought so a Sept/Oct release is jsut enough for me work my ass off so i can afford the iPhone :D
nagromme
Aug 25, 03:22 PM
It would be a shame to Apple toss aside its consistent record of having the industry's best support.
But it takes more than a few weeks of anonymous "uptick" to indicate such a dire turn of events.
Now, if such a thing did come to pass, I welcome every complaint and flame Apple can get: feedback is what gets them back on track.
And it's a shame about the discussion staff--seems like an odd move from where I'm standing.
But it takes more than a few weeks of anonymous "uptick" to indicate such a dire turn of events.
Now, if such a thing did come to pass, I welcome every complaint and flame Apple can get: feedback is what gets them back on track.
And it's a shame about the discussion staff--seems like an odd move from where I'm standing.
the vj
Apr 6, 02:53 PM
I remember when I was a kid and I asked my father for a toy and he came with a different one... I was the saddest kid on earth.
I believe that who ever asked for an iPad and got a Motorola would feel the same.
(Dad, I love you)
I believe that who ever asked for an iPad and got a Motorola would feel the same.
(Dad, I love you)
