MacBoobsPro
Oct 26, 03:36 AM
I had a sneaky feeling since August this might happen so I decided not to take the plunge with a MacPro straight away. :D
*gleefully rubs hands in anticipation*
*shuts down g5, goes to bathroom, brushes teeth, goes to bedroom, gets changed. Goes down stairs. Jumps in car. Drives to work. Gets to work. Turns on 'ancient' G3. Sighs loudly*
*Logs back in to MacRumors*
*gleefully rubs hands in anticipation*
*shuts down g5, goes to bathroom, brushes teeth, goes to bedroom, gets changed. Goes down stairs. Jumps in car. Drives to work. Gets to work. Turns on 'ancient' G3. Sighs loudly*
*Logs back in to MacRumors*
Photics
Apr 9, 11:32 AM
I do think the market can sustain 4 companies, perhaps even especially the casual market which is significantly larger. I would challenge you to answer why you think the smaller top-end console market can sustain 2 large players, but the broader casual market could not?
I think the difference here is that Apple represents casual gaming, perhaps on a level that's greater than Nintendo. It was divide and conquer last generation. The "hardcore" players chose between the XBOX 360 and the PlayStation 3, while Nintendo opened a new market with casual gaming.
Like mentioned in my previous post, Radio survived the invention of the television. Nintendo could survive Apple's entry into gaming. Yet, I think it means harder times for Nintendo. In addition to competing over price, Nintendo has to compete for the player's time.
With the Internet, free casual games like FarmVille / CityVille, cheap iOS games, cheap Android games... even Microsoft trying to make something happen in Mobile... there are a lot of big guns in this arena.
I bought Super Mario Bros. Wii and I thought it was a great game. But soon after, having completed every possible objective in the game, I realized that it was expensive. The game just sits idle now... a $40-$50 dust collector. That's basically the overall fate for my Wii. It's not because I'm a casual gamer. It's because I'm tired of spending so much money for such a short entertainment experience.
While you might look down on the nine games I got for less than $10, I think it's great. I'm more likely to play Fruit Ninja and Tiny Wings than Super Mario Bros Wii. So, for approximately $40 less, I got more entertainment value from my iOS games... and many of these games are being updated. Is Nintendo going to go back and release a patch for the pixelation problem I see in the background of Super Mario Bros Wii?
I think Apple is better for the gaming industry... and I think the results of future competition will reflect that. I don't see the logic in how Nintendo stays the dominate player in the industry when Apple is making so many smart moves for gaming.
Game Center... GREAT!
iTunes App Store games... Awesome for me, as a developer and a consumer
iPhone 4... awesome!
Xcode / GameSalad... great!
I think the difference here is that Apple represents casual gaming, perhaps on a level that's greater than Nintendo. It was divide and conquer last generation. The "hardcore" players chose between the XBOX 360 and the PlayStation 3, while Nintendo opened a new market with casual gaming.
Like mentioned in my previous post, Radio survived the invention of the television. Nintendo could survive Apple's entry into gaming. Yet, I think it means harder times for Nintendo. In addition to competing over price, Nintendo has to compete for the player's time.
With the Internet, free casual games like FarmVille / CityVille, cheap iOS games, cheap Android games... even Microsoft trying to make something happen in Mobile... there are a lot of big guns in this arena.
I bought Super Mario Bros. Wii and I thought it was a great game. But soon after, having completed every possible objective in the game, I realized that it was expensive. The game just sits idle now... a $40-$50 dust collector. That's basically the overall fate for my Wii. It's not because I'm a casual gamer. It's because I'm tired of spending so much money for such a short entertainment experience.
While you might look down on the nine games I got for less than $10, I think it's great. I'm more likely to play Fruit Ninja and Tiny Wings than Super Mario Bros Wii. So, for approximately $40 less, I got more entertainment value from my iOS games... and many of these games are being updated. Is Nintendo going to go back and release a patch for the pixelation problem I see in the background of Super Mario Bros Wii?
I think Apple is better for the gaming industry... and I think the results of future competition will reflect that. I don't see the logic in how Nintendo stays the dominate player in the industry when Apple is making so many smart moves for gaming.
Game Center... GREAT!
iTunes App Store games... Awesome for me, as a developer and a consumer
iPhone 4... awesome!
Xcode / GameSalad... great!
munkery
May 3, 12:15 AM
Yes, and that prevents AntiVirus 2010 from successfully collecting credit card info too.
Check out this quote about the latest variant of that Windows malware called Antivirus 2011.
You're blocked from executing anything else, including trying to run your real anti-virus program.
This virus program renders your entire computer useless until you can get it removed. And some of its many variants are becoming immune to existing removal tools.
From here, http://detnews.com/article/20110502/BIZ04/105020317/1013/rss12
BTW, it renders Windows useless by corrupting the registry. No registry in OS X.
Luckily, this type of malware on a Mac is not nearly as bad if your clumsy enough to get infected. You can even remove it from the account that is infected without having to boot into a safe mode.
This post made me have to edit a previous post. Thought I should quote it,
Problems with Windows security in comparison to Mac OS X presented just in this thread:
1) Greater number of privilege escalation vulnerabilities:
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
2) Earlier versions of NT based Windows (Windows XP and earlier) do not use discretionary access controls by default.
3) Permissions system does not include a user defined unique identifier (password) by default. More susceptible to user space exploitation leading to authentication stolen via spoofed prompt that appears unrelated to UAC because password not associated with authentication.
4) Windows sandbox mechanism relies on inherited permissions so that turning off UAC turns off the sandbox. This sandbox has been defeated in the wild (in the last two pwn2owns).
I do not know of any TrustedBSD MAC framework (BSD and Mac sandbox), AppArmor (openSUSE and Ubuntu), or SE Linux (Fedora) mandatory access control escapes? These sandbox mechanisms do not rely on inherited permissions.
5) The Windows registry is a single point of failure that can be leveraged by malware.
Check out this quote about the latest variant of that Windows malware called Antivirus 2011.
You're blocked from executing anything else, including trying to run your real anti-virus program.
This virus program renders your entire computer useless until you can get it removed. And some of its many variants are becoming immune to existing removal tools.
From here, http://detnews.com/article/20110502/BIZ04/105020317/1013/rss12
BTW, it renders Windows useless by corrupting the registry. No registry in OS X.
Luckily, this type of malware on a Mac is not nearly as bad if your clumsy enough to get infected. You can even remove it from the account that is infected without having to boot into a safe mode.
This post made me have to edit a previous post. Thought I should quote it,
Problems with Windows security in comparison to Mac OS X presented just in this thread:
1) Greater number of privilege escalation vulnerabilities:
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
2) Earlier versions of NT based Windows (Windows XP and earlier) do not use discretionary access controls by default.
3) Permissions system does not include a user defined unique identifier (password) by default. More susceptible to user space exploitation leading to authentication stolen via spoofed prompt that appears unrelated to UAC because password not associated with authentication.
4) Windows sandbox mechanism relies on inherited permissions so that turning off UAC turns off the sandbox. This sandbox has been defeated in the wild (in the last two pwn2owns).
I do not know of any TrustedBSD MAC framework (BSD and Mac sandbox), AppArmor (openSUSE and Ubuntu), or SE Linux (Fedora) mandatory access control escapes? These sandbox mechanisms do not rely on inherited permissions.
5) The Windows registry is a single point of failure that can be leveraged by malware.
legacyb4
Jul 12, 01:55 PM
The MacBooks sound so underpowered (even though that's really not the case) with the new announcement...
nagromme
Jul 14, 02:28 PM
A new case would be "fun" but what I care about is what it delivers, not how it looks when I crawl under my desk :)
For the low-end (single chip) towers, dual core Conroe makes more sense to me than Xeon, simply for cost reasons. (Though I'm eyeing the new Xeons for my first ever top-end Mac... with dual-duals!)
Two optical slots would be nice, allowing me to "wait and see" about next-gen optical formats.
My intention: to wait for 3Ghz+ Xeon, which sounds like it should only be a few months later. That's also time for a few little tweaks to be made if necessary, giving me something between a version A and version B machine.
I suspect we'll see a lot of reviews and benchmarks giving a bad cost to value ratio for the Macs.
Without a doubt. And in keeping with long tradition, the "less expensive" name-brand PC will mysteriously come with less (ports, software, even speed if Netburst lingers) than the Mac :)
For the low-end (single chip) towers, dual core Conroe makes more sense to me than Xeon, simply for cost reasons. (Though I'm eyeing the new Xeons for my first ever top-end Mac... with dual-duals!)
Two optical slots would be nice, allowing me to "wait and see" about next-gen optical formats.
My intention: to wait for 3Ghz+ Xeon, which sounds like it should only be a few months later. That's also time for a few little tweaks to be made if necessary, giving me something between a version A and version B machine.
I suspect we'll see a lot of reviews and benchmarks giving a bad cost to value ratio for the Macs.
Without a doubt. And in keeping with long tradition, the "less expensive" name-brand PC will mysteriously come with less (ports, software, even speed if Netburst lingers) than the Mac :)
Don't panic
Mar 14, 10:29 PM
authorities just expanded evacuation steps, reflecting worsening situations/new leaks
iMikeT
Sep 26, 07:16 AM
I'll be holding my Mac Pro purchase off for a while...
Now that I think about it, an 8-core system would work great when 10.5 arrives. Imagine using the "Spaces" feature in Leopard and each space running a separate application. A Mac with this much power would be perfect doing such a task.;)
Now that I think about it, an 8-core system would work great when 10.5 arrives. Imagine using the "Spaces" feature in Leopard and each space running a separate application. A Mac with this much power would be perfect doing such a task.;)
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 07:01 PM
Ok, if you're SOOOOO thrilled, you've been living in a cave because you could've been doing that for years, there's nothing new here aside for an apple logo on the box... the EyeHome could do that for the last 3 years (no storage, with a remote, streaming from my mac over Wifi - the eyehome physically connected to the router, my Mac on Wifi) (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome ). And you're right, it's great... Too bad you still have to wait 6 months :P
Yes, except the point is the iTunes/Movie interface with EyeHome does not have. What is cool is you can now use BOTH!!!
And the HD capabilities of iTV exceed Eyehome.
Yes, except the point is the iTunes/Movie interface with EyeHome does not have. What is cool is you can now use BOTH!!!
And the HD capabilities of iTV exceed Eyehome.
d-fi
Sep 12, 06:33 PM
I think a lot of people are overlooking what "iTV" does.
It's not a standalone component device that connects to your computer. It's an extension OF your computer.
Ughh, I really hope that Apple upates this product before releasing it for sale.
Come one Apple, what about the:
- TV recording
well you got me there it would be nice if it was a tivo as well but thats not really in apples interest
- DVD player
My mac has a DVD player so that means my tv would as well (and 99% of people already have a component DVD player for their tv) not something i want to pay for if i already have one
- Built In Storage (Hard Drive)
My mac has lots of Hard Drive space and i can add more if i need it. With iTV i can send anything to the TV that quicktime can play (i assume). Again since my computer already has lots of storage i don't want to pay for more and if i did need more space i would rather add space to my computer then to a set top box.
- Input for digital cable
well again it would be nice if it was a set top box as well but thats not really in apples interest so probably not going to happen.
Some analogies:
- It's like an wireless XBOX 360, except it doesn't play games or DVD's.
- It's like a networked DVD player, without the DVD player.
well I'm guessing that the iTV would have a remote (otherwise it will suck) so for DVD's if the DVD is in your mac press play on remote and it goes, that easy. maybe a slight annoyance if your computer is in another room but not hard. But i must point out again that 99% of people have a DVD player, the goal of iTV is to move away from conventional media.
This is slightly off topic but i would much rather pay for a (blue ray/HD-DVD) burner for my computer then a component unit for my tv as i would get much more use out of my (blue ray/HD-DVD) burner with "iTV" then i would ever get out of a component unit plus save me a few $$ by not having to buy both types of units
I'd rather spend $300 on almost ANY OTHER electronics product.
What a disappointment... I guess Apple is just trying to stave off the competition from the media capabilities of Windows Media Center and XBOX.
i guess were on different pages here but i think this unit is an excellent extension of my computer. i will admit i don't really care about recording aspect of the unit because i just download programs if i miss them. Thats the main reason why i would love to stream them to my tv with out moving my computer so i can enjoy all my programs in my living room.
I'm very interested in this unit and i KNOW I'm not alone
(BTW timswim78 just using your post to hi-light my point of view nothing personal :) )
It's not a standalone component device that connects to your computer. It's an extension OF your computer.
Ughh, I really hope that Apple upates this product before releasing it for sale.
Come one Apple, what about the:
- TV recording
well you got me there it would be nice if it was a tivo as well but thats not really in apples interest
- DVD player
My mac has a DVD player so that means my tv would as well (and 99% of people already have a component DVD player for their tv) not something i want to pay for if i already have one
- Built In Storage (Hard Drive)
My mac has lots of Hard Drive space and i can add more if i need it. With iTV i can send anything to the TV that quicktime can play (i assume). Again since my computer already has lots of storage i don't want to pay for more and if i did need more space i would rather add space to my computer then to a set top box.
- Input for digital cable
well again it would be nice if it was a set top box as well but thats not really in apples interest so probably not going to happen.
Some analogies:
- It's like an wireless XBOX 360, except it doesn't play games or DVD's.
- It's like a networked DVD player, without the DVD player.
well I'm guessing that the iTV would have a remote (otherwise it will suck) so for DVD's if the DVD is in your mac press play on remote and it goes, that easy. maybe a slight annoyance if your computer is in another room but not hard. But i must point out again that 99% of people have a DVD player, the goal of iTV is to move away from conventional media.
This is slightly off topic but i would much rather pay for a (blue ray/HD-DVD) burner for my computer then a component unit for my tv as i would get much more use out of my (blue ray/HD-DVD) burner with "iTV" then i would ever get out of a component unit plus save me a few $$ by not having to buy both types of units
I'd rather spend $300 on almost ANY OTHER electronics product.
What a disappointment... I guess Apple is just trying to stave off the competition from the media capabilities of Windows Media Center and XBOX.
i guess were on different pages here but i think this unit is an excellent extension of my computer. i will admit i don't really care about recording aspect of the unit because i just download programs if i miss them. Thats the main reason why i would love to stream them to my tv with out moving my computer so i can enjoy all my programs in my living room.
I'm very interested in this unit and i KNOW I'm not alone
(BTW timswim78 just using your post to hi-light my point of view nothing personal :) )
Marx55
Sep 20, 04:12 AM
What iTV needs is the option to boot Mac OS X to be used as a wireless computerless presentation remote tool. Just plug the flash disk with the Keynote or PowerPoint presentation made on a Mac or PC-Windows and use the remote control to give the presentation. Great for corporations, education and domestic markets. With a huge halo effect. Apple will sell millions.
Multimedia
Sep 27, 08:37 PM
Surprised to see this thread come to a grinding hault after only 145 posts. I pledge right here and now to be one of the first to buy a NEW 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pro as soon as it becomes available. I will not wait for them to go refrub although I will probably wait for them to come with iLife '07 if they are added to the BTO page before the January 9th SteveNote.
I turn 60 on January 12th. :) Happy Birthday to me it will be. :eek: :D
I turn 60 on January 12th. :) Happy Birthday to me it will be. :eek: :D
fpnc
Mar 20, 05:20 PM
IMO, this whole discussion has deteriorated beyond any form of usefulness. However, it does reaffirm two points -- never discuss either politics ("laws") or religion ("right" and "wrong") in mixed company. :)
The recent direction of this debate should have been seen as a non-starter -- that is, neither side of the argument is going to win and thus it's pointless to continue.
It does seem somewhat newsworthy, however, that there have been a few reports that the PyMusique utility has stopped working. Apparently you can no longer complete the purchase authorization. Can anyone else confirm this (may or may not be true)?
The recent direction of this debate should have been seen as a non-starter -- that is, neither side of the argument is going to win and thus it's pointless to continue.
It does seem somewhat newsworthy, however, that there have been a few reports that the PyMusique utility has stopped working. Apparently you can no longer complete the purchase authorization. Can anyone else confirm this (may or may not be true)?
deus_ex_machina
Apr 21, 04:40 AM
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
NT1440
Apr 25, 08:56 PM
<snip>Allah decided that </snip>
When exactly?
When exactly?
OllyW
Apr 28, 01:27 PM
It would help the iPad, in the manner you are describing it, if, like an Android/Honeycomb tablet it was a machine in it's own right.
If you look at the way it works, and the way Apple have designed the OS, it's obvious that Apple do not see the iPad as an independent PC, and that Apple themselves see it, and have designed it to be just an extension of your "Real" personal computer.
We are having to rely on 3th party apps to get around Apple's official built in limitations for the device, It's linked totally to just one computer running iTunes, you can't even connect it to say your PC, your friends, PC and your works PC to upload and download data to and from the various machines.
The iPad, as designed, with Apples official software is made so that you set thing up and organise things on your PC or Mac, then you dock your iPad (your mobile extension of your PC) you do a few things, then you come back, re-dock the iPad and it get's backed up.
That's the device that Apple made and how they see it.
It's not the iPad's fault. It's how Apple have made it.
The fact that with some 3rd party apps you can extend it's functionality beyond how Apple see the device is neither here nor there.
Personally, I very VERY much hope Apple do allow the iPad to grow into a fully independent device and break it's lock down link to iTunes.
Unfortunately, seeing as the iTunes link is Apple's money making link, I cannot see them allowing this to happen for a long time, meaning it will never grow to it's full potential as a fully independent device.
Well put.
This is why I don't think it's a PC. It's getting there but it's still too restricted in it's current guise.
If you look at the way it works, and the way Apple have designed the OS, it's obvious that Apple do not see the iPad as an independent PC, and that Apple themselves see it, and have designed it to be just an extension of your "Real" personal computer.
We are having to rely on 3th party apps to get around Apple's official built in limitations for the device, It's linked totally to just one computer running iTunes, you can't even connect it to say your PC, your friends, PC and your works PC to upload and download data to and from the various machines.
The iPad, as designed, with Apples official software is made so that you set thing up and organise things on your PC or Mac, then you dock your iPad (your mobile extension of your PC) you do a few things, then you come back, re-dock the iPad and it get's backed up.
That's the device that Apple made and how they see it.
It's not the iPad's fault. It's how Apple have made it.
The fact that with some 3rd party apps you can extend it's functionality beyond how Apple see the device is neither here nor there.
Personally, I very VERY much hope Apple do allow the iPad to grow into a fully independent device and break it's lock down link to iTunes.
Unfortunately, seeing as the iTunes link is Apple's money making link, I cannot see them allowing this to happen for a long time, meaning it will never grow to it's full potential as a fully independent device.
Well put.
This is why I don't think it's a PC. It's getting there but it's still too restricted in it's current guise.
C N Reilly
Mar 18, 12:59 PM
I'm not worried about this. There's only two possibilities:
1) AT&T is just assuming anyone who uses more than X amount of data must be tethering, and shooting out threats. In such a case, all you have to do is call them and tell them you stream a radio station all day. They take you off the "evil tetherer" list; end of problem. (I've already seen two people post elsewhere that this has worked for them.)
2) There actually is something in the software/firmware that's enabling AT&T to tell who's tethering. In this case, the jailbreakers will just add some code to the next release to block or fool that bit of code. End of problem.
All signs thus far point to (1) being the truth, btw.
1) AT&T is just assuming anyone who uses more than X amount of data must be tethering, and shooting out threats. In such a case, all you have to do is call them and tell them you stream a radio station all day. They take you off the "evil tetherer" list; end of problem. (I've already seen two people post elsewhere that this has worked for them.)
2) There actually is something in the software/firmware that's enabling AT&T to tell who's tethering. In this case, the jailbreakers will just add some code to the next release to block or fool that bit of code. End of problem.
All signs thus far point to (1) being the truth, btw.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 25, 01:27 AM
Well, I am not 100% sure about the non-existence of any given deity, but when it comes to the cobbled-together fairy tale that Christians subscribe to, my certainty-of-BS level goes through the roof. (Jews and Muslims can readily be included as well.)
There a different kinds of certainty: logical certainty and psychological certainty, say. Necessarily, 1 = 1 because 1 != 1 is a self-contradiction. A sound deductive argument proves conclusively that it's conclusion is true. If you affirm the premises of a sound deductive argument while you deny its conclusion, you contradict yourself.
You can be certain, though not absolutely certain, that some scientific theory is true because all your evidence has confirmed it so far. But as I told everyone here, inductive arguments are always inconclusive when they support their conclusions. Although the conclusion may be true, there could always, notice, I say could always be a counter-example to it. A conclusion may be statistically probable enough that you would be unreasonable to doubt it. But probability, at least epistemic probability, is about how strongly an argument's premises support its conclusion if they do support it. Whether you're talking about epistemic probability, statistical probability, or both, some highly probable theories are still false. Given the available evidence, some true theories can be highly improbable. But objectively, a theory's statistical probability is either zero or else it's one. Regardless of degrees of confirmation an argument's conclusion is either true or false. It either conforms to reality or it doesn't conform to reality.
There's merely psychological certainty, too. Imagine that my honorary brother Brian dies. Yes, he's a real person. You show me the death certificate. You show me his tombstone. I see o coroner's report Brian's picture on it. But I delude myself into believing that he's still living. I'm sure he's alive when he is, in fact, dead.
Sydde, I'm sure you don't have merely psychological certainty, the kind of certainty I've described with my hypothetical example about Brian. I don't even know what kind of certainty you have about theistic beliefs you allude to. Yet, if you've misinterpreted some theistic belief, you may only think you're certain that the belief is false.
There a different kinds of certainty: logical certainty and psychological certainty, say. Necessarily, 1 = 1 because 1 != 1 is a self-contradiction. A sound deductive argument proves conclusively that it's conclusion is true. If you affirm the premises of a sound deductive argument while you deny its conclusion, you contradict yourself.
You can be certain, though not absolutely certain, that some scientific theory is true because all your evidence has confirmed it so far. But as I told everyone here, inductive arguments are always inconclusive when they support their conclusions. Although the conclusion may be true, there could always, notice, I say could always be a counter-example to it. A conclusion may be statistically probable enough that you would be unreasonable to doubt it. But probability, at least epistemic probability, is about how strongly an argument's premises support its conclusion if they do support it. Whether you're talking about epistemic probability, statistical probability, or both, some highly probable theories are still false. Given the available evidence, some true theories can be highly improbable. But objectively, a theory's statistical probability is either zero or else it's one. Regardless of degrees of confirmation an argument's conclusion is either true or false. It either conforms to reality or it doesn't conform to reality.
There's merely psychological certainty, too. Imagine that my honorary brother Brian dies. Yes, he's a real person. You show me the death certificate. You show me his tombstone. I see o coroner's report Brian's picture on it. But I delude myself into believing that he's still living. I'm sure he's alive when he is, in fact, dead.
Sydde, I'm sure you don't have merely psychological certainty, the kind of certainty I've described with my hypothetical example about Brian. I don't even know what kind of certainty you have about theistic beliefs you allude to. Yet, if you've misinterpreted some theistic belief, you may only think you're certain that the belief is false.
Hodapp
Sep 26, 04:57 PM
And you can swap 'em right in. If Apple doesn't release a Mac Pro upgrade with some other goodies (I'm personally hoping for DDR2, as the 8GB of goofy RAM in my Mac Pro cost me an arm and a leg.) I'm just going to buy a couple quad core chips and toss them in my machine.
AppliedVisual
Oct 19, 11:18 AM
I wonder if one of the Leopard "Top Secrets" is Core Control so we may assign how many cores for each applicaiton we know can use more than one.
That would be nice. Although, I don't think it would be too difficult to write such an app that could be controlled via a dashboard widget. I haven't dug that deep into OSX programming and XCode, but it will definitely be something I'll have to look into doing if Leopard doesn't have the ability and I've got 8 cores to manage.
This product may be one of the most anticipated by me in my entire 22 years with Mac. I really can't wait for it to ship. Going from Two to Four Then Eight Cores in less than one year, and not just for show but for really finding a need and really needing all that additional horsepower, - only since February '06 for me - is a pretty amazing technological leaping experience. :)
Same here. Only 6 years ago, I had to have a Pentium workstation with 10 separate systems for rendering. Over the years, those numbers have fluxuated, but now we've come to a whole new way of working. A single Mac Pro with 8GB and the lowest video and HDD option (with the dual-core Woodcrest) can replace 3 of the systems on my render farm and still provide a performance increase. I'm really looking into XServe, but they're rather expensive. The preliminary reviews are making me drool, but that's a lot of money for render nodes. I'm so tempted though - 8-core XServe w/16GB RAM looks like a winner. 4 of those in my rack would render all my 3D faster than I can model and set up the scenes. ...It's only money, right? :D
My 30" Dell arrives tomorrow, Friday October 20. Whoopie! Mac Pro 8-Core Ready, Willing & Able.
Congrats! Hope you have better luck than me.. I had to refuse mine on monday because the box was mangled and crushed. Dell is shipping a new one, but I don't have tracking/delivery info yet. :( But like I said before, I have one already and love the the thing.
That would be nice. Although, I don't think it would be too difficult to write such an app that could be controlled via a dashboard widget. I haven't dug that deep into OSX programming and XCode, but it will definitely be something I'll have to look into doing if Leopard doesn't have the ability and I've got 8 cores to manage.
This product may be one of the most anticipated by me in my entire 22 years with Mac. I really can't wait for it to ship. Going from Two to Four Then Eight Cores in less than one year, and not just for show but for really finding a need and really needing all that additional horsepower, - only since February '06 for me - is a pretty amazing technological leaping experience. :)
Same here. Only 6 years ago, I had to have a Pentium workstation with 10 separate systems for rendering. Over the years, those numbers have fluxuated, but now we've come to a whole new way of working. A single Mac Pro with 8GB and the lowest video and HDD option (with the dual-core Woodcrest) can replace 3 of the systems on my render farm and still provide a performance increase. I'm really looking into XServe, but they're rather expensive. The preliminary reviews are making me drool, but that's a lot of money for render nodes. I'm so tempted though - 8-core XServe w/16GB RAM looks like a winner. 4 of those in my rack would render all my 3D faster than I can model and set up the scenes. ...It's only money, right? :D
My 30" Dell arrives tomorrow, Friday October 20. Whoopie! Mac Pro 8-Core Ready, Willing & Able.
Congrats! Hope you have better luck than me.. I had to refuse mine on monday because the box was mangled and crushed. Dell is shipping a new one, but I don't have tracking/delivery info yet. :( But like I said before, I have one already and love the the thing.
AtomBoy
Oct 7, 08:08 PM
Hi WanaPBnow,
Yeah, you guessed it, I'm an ex-pat!
You're right. Apple needs to 'kick-start' the Power PC. I hope the IBM rumours are true and we'll see a G5 sometime next year that can really compete with Intel/AMD.
If the speed/cost ratio continues to widen considerably over the next 12 months Apple might lose a number of loyalists.
Yeah, you guessed it, I'm an ex-pat!
You're right. Apple needs to 'kick-start' the Power PC. I hope the IBM rumours are true and we'll see a G5 sometime next year that can really compete with Intel/AMD.
If the speed/cost ratio continues to widen considerably over the next 12 months Apple might lose a number of loyalists.
*LTD*
Apr 9, 06:03 PM
You mean game developers are redefining it. What was the last game Apple released? Texas Hold'Em with no online multiplayer? Riiight.
It's all about the platform.
It's all about the platform.
bboucher790
Mar 18, 10:33 AM
I don't think it is a bad thing for AT+T to prevent people from tethering to a laptop on an unlimited cell phone plan. Those people are just taking advantage of the system, and wasting bandwidth that the rest of us could use.
As far as I'm concerned it is the same as going to an all you can eat restaurant and sharing your food between two people, while only paying for one. It isn't a serious crime, but it is stealing, and you know that if you get caught you will have to stop. I'm not going to feel bad for these people that are using 5+GB per month.
+11
The whole "it's MY data, I can do what I want with it!" argument is countered by your perfect analogy with a buffet. I tip my hat to you on that one. If you're at an all-you-can-eat buffet, it doesn't mean you can share your food with your entire family.
I've always believed that unlimited data, on a smartphone, enables you to connect to the internet as much as you want on the device you're contracted to. It's not like home internet where you can share the connection, nor have I ever imagined it would be.
I think that people just like to get "angry at the man" when they don't get things the way they want. ATT is trying to improve their network, good for them.
As far as I'm concerned it is the same as going to an all you can eat restaurant and sharing your food between two people, while only paying for one. It isn't a serious crime, but it is stealing, and you know that if you get caught you will have to stop. I'm not going to feel bad for these people that are using 5+GB per month.
+11
The whole "it's MY data, I can do what I want with it!" argument is countered by your perfect analogy with a buffet. I tip my hat to you on that one. If you're at an all-you-can-eat buffet, it doesn't mean you can share your food with your entire family.
I've always believed that unlimited data, on a smartphone, enables you to connect to the internet as much as you want on the device you're contracted to. It's not like home internet where you can share the connection, nor have I ever imagined it would be.
I think that people just like to get "angry at the man" when they don't get things the way they want. ATT is trying to improve their network, good for them.
Lennholm
May 2, 04:08 PM
To compare Windows' extremely annoying UAC crap with the non-intrusive one-time authorization requests for newly-downloaded files on Mac OS X is ludicrous...not to mention the fact that OS X's user password validity lasts for a while after it is typed.
Conclusion: You've probably never really used OS X.
Well I've actually worked with technical support of OS X so...
Both the authorization in OS X and Windows UAC requires confirmation when any sw needs to write to the disk or access to certain system information. OS X doesn't only require authorization when installing an app (and updating, mind you) or running it for the first time, it also needs it when changing anything in the system.
UAC works exactly the same way, that 3rd party developers aren't making the effort to adapt their sw to a permission based OS and unnecesarily require admin rights isn't really MS fault.
As I said, I can't even think of any such sw on my Windows PC and I don't find UAC more annoying than OS X authorization in the least. I get the UAC prompt at the same times as I do in OS X, when installing/updating an application and changing system preferences, nothing else.
What do you mean, "Try Windows 7"? I've used and maintained every version of Windows from 98SE all the way up to 7. I even toyed around with 95 in a virtual machine from pure curiosity. Hell, I even have a Windows 7 boot camp partition.
I know exactly what Windows 7 is like. It comes with maintaining every computer at the house, several of the computers at the high school, fixing collegemates' computers, and being known as the neighborhood tech kid since age 14 (now 22, for reference).
Sorry, that last sentence wasn't aimed at you, it was more of a general statement about how some people simply dismiss everything that comes from MS without any personal experience. It's so obvious that they haven't used Win 7 and are only making assumptions, simply because it's cool to hate MS
Conclusion: You've probably never really used OS X.
Well I've actually worked with technical support of OS X so...
Both the authorization in OS X and Windows UAC requires confirmation when any sw needs to write to the disk or access to certain system information. OS X doesn't only require authorization when installing an app (and updating, mind you) or running it for the first time, it also needs it when changing anything in the system.
UAC works exactly the same way, that 3rd party developers aren't making the effort to adapt their sw to a permission based OS and unnecesarily require admin rights isn't really MS fault.
As I said, I can't even think of any such sw on my Windows PC and I don't find UAC more annoying than OS X authorization in the least. I get the UAC prompt at the same times as I do in OS X, when installing/updating an application and changing system preferences, nothing else.
What do you mean, "Try Windows 7"? I've used and maintained every version of Windows from 98SE all the way up to 7. I even toyed around with 95 in a virtual machine from pure curiosity. Hell, I even have a Windows 7 boot camp partition.
I know exactly what Windows 7 is like. It comes with maintaining every computer at the house, several of the computers at the high school, fixing collegemates' computers, and being known as the neighborhood tech kid since age 14 (now 22, for reference).
Sorry, that last sentence wasn't aimed at you, it was more of a general statement about how some people simply dismiss everything that comes from MS without any personal experience. It's so obvious that they haven't used Win 7 and are only making assumptions, simply because it's cool to hate MS
javajedi
Oct 11, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by ddtlm
javajedi:
Admittedly I am getting lost in what all the numbers people have mentioned are for, but looking at these numbers you have here and assuming that they are doing the same task, you can rest assured that the G3/G4 are running far inferior software. AltiVec and SSE2 or not, there is just nothing that can explain this difference other than an unfair playing field. There is no task that a P4 can do 11x or 12x the speed of a G4 (comparing top-end models here). The P4 posseses nothing that runs at 11x or 12x the speed. Not the clock, not the units, the bandwidth to memory and caches are not 11x or 12x as good, it is not 11x better at branch prediction. I absolutely refuse to accept these results without very substantial backing because they contradict reality as I know it. I know a lot about the P4 and the G4, and I know a lot about programming in a fair number of different languages, even some assembly. I insist that these results do not reflect the actual performance of the processors, until irrefutable proof is presented to show how they do.
I guess the 70 and 90 don't surprise me a lot for the G3/G4, depending on clock speed difference. But all this trendy wandwagon-esque G4-bashing is not correct just cause every one else is doing it. There are things about the G3 that are very nice, but the G4 is no slouch compared to it, and given the higher clock that it's pipeline allows, the G3 really can't keep up. The G4 not only sports a better standard FPU, but it also sports better integer units.
Keep in mind this test does not reflect balanced system performance. The point of this exercise has been to determine how the G4's FPU compares to an assortment of different processors and operating systems.
I'd like to know you you qualify "inferior software" on the x86. If the P4 is some how cheating, then all of the other processors are cheating as well. Again, we ran the exact same code. We even made it into C code on the mac for maximum speed. In fact I'd like for you to check the code out for yourself, so you can see there is no misdirection here. Keep in mind, other people here have ran it on Athlons in Linux and still get sub 10 second times. I've also had a friend of mine (who i can trust) run it under Yellow Dog on a G4, he got 100+ seconds. And I did not tell him the scores we've been getting on the Mac, I had him run the test first and tell me how long it took before I even said anything. The JRE and now Mac OS X have been factored out of this equation.
When you look at operations like these, for example scalar integer ops, that's all register. The fsb, bsb, or anything else doesn't matter. This is a direct comparison between the two units on the G4 vs everything else. Also, my question to you is, in what way are the integer and fpu units "better" in the G4? I did not build the chip so I can't say weather they are better or not better than those in the 750FX, but I can say I've ran a fair benchmark comparing the FPU on the G4 from everything to a P4, Athlon, C3, G3, different operating systems, on x86 Windows and Linux, and on the Mac, Mac OS X and Yellow Dog. The results are consistent across the board. What more "proof" do you want?
javajedi:
Admittedly I am getting lost in what all the numbers people have mentioned are for, but looking at these numbers you have here and assuming that they are doing the same task, you can rest assured that the G3/G4 are running far inferior software. AltiVec and SSE2 or not, there is just nothing that can explain this difference other than an unfair playing field. There is no task that a P4 can do 11x or 12x the speed of a G4 (comparing top-end models here). The P4 posseses nothing that runs at 11x or 12x the speed. Not the clock, not the units, the bandwidth to memory and caches are not 11x or 12x as good, it is not 11x better at branch prediction. I absolutely refuse to accept these results without very substantial backing because they contradict reality as I know it. I know a lot about the P4 and the G4, and I know a lot about programming in a fair number of different languages, even some assembly. I insist that these results do not reflect the actual performance of the processors, until irrefutable proof is presented to show how they do.
I guess the 70 and 90 don't surprise me a lot for the G3/G4, depending on clock speed difference. But all this trendy wandwagon-esque G4-bashing is not correct just cause every one else is doing it. There are things about the G3 that are very nice, but the G4 is no slouch compared to it, and given the higher clock that it's pipeline allows, the G3 really can't keep up. The G4 not only sports a better standard FPU, but it also sports better integer units.
Keep in mind this test does not reflect balanced system performance. The point of this exercise has been to determine how the G4's FPU compares to an assortment of different processors and operating systems.
I'd like to know you you qualify "inferior software" on the x86. If the P4 is some how cheating, then all of the other processors are cheating as well. Again, we ran the exact same code. We even made it into C code on the mac for maximum speed. In fact I'd like for you to check the code out for yourself, so you can see there is no misdirection here. Keep in mind, other people here have ran it on Athlons in Linux and still get sub 10 second times. I've also had a friend of mine (who i can trust) run it under Yellow Dog on a G4, he got 100+ seconds. And I did not tell him the scores we've been getting on the Mac, I had him run the test first and tell me how long it took before I even said anything. The JRE and now Mac OS X have been factored out of this equation.
When you look at operations like these, for example scalar integer ops, that's all register. The fsb, bsb, or anything else doesn't matter. This is a direct comparison between the two units on the G4 vs everything else. Also, my question to you is, in what way are the integer and fpu units "better" in the G4? I did not build the chip so I can't say weather they are better or not better than those in the 750FX, but I can say I've ran a fair benchmark comparing the FPU on the G4 from everything to a P4, Athlon, C3, G3, different operating systems, on x86 Windows and Linux, and on the Mac, Mac OS X and Yellow Dog. The results are consistent across the board. What more "proof" do you want?
No comments:
Post a Comment