SeaFox
Nov 28, 08:37 PM
The rationale is that iPods are used only for stolen music (which they aren't) and this will help offset the losses (which it won't).
What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music. They wouldn't be able to sue people for having stolen music on their iPods if this fee is supposed to cover losses from piracy.
What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music. They wouldn't be able to sue people for having stolen music on their iPods if this fee is supposed to cover losses from piracy.
appleguy123
Feb 28, 08:34 PM
I said "Both cases are untreatable."
Very sorry.
I have dyslexia, so I read sentences in my head, not words. When the words fit, my brain just makes that model of what it thinks the text said.
Sorry for getting mad. :o
Very sorry.
I have dyslexia, so I read sentences in my head, not words. When the words fit, my brain just makes that model of what it thinks the text said.
Sorry for getting mad. :o
moonzilla
Jul 27, 12:08 PM
i think it's safe to assume that Apple will be making an effort to differentiate the Macbooks and the MBP. As of right now, other than the video card, and backlit keyboard, there doesnt seem like a solid reason to fork over an extra 800-1200 bucks. i expect Apple to use the core2 for this purpose. put merom only in the mbp, and force the power-hungry users to upgrade to the pro model.
yfile
Apr 6, 04:42 AM
.. I never use it, but I use Motion and Soundtrack a lot and I need true 3D in Motion, even simply 3D. I need no crashing Motion. I need optimised and 64-bit Motion. I want it now, please!
cmaier
Apr 20, 03:45 PM
I noticed that the HTC and Samsung cases only share just one patent: the bounce-back one.
And the Samsung adds many trademark and state law unfair competition claims.
Arguing that they're the same because Apple will lose them both is bootstrapping.
And the Samsung adds many trademark and state law unfair competition claims.
Arguing that they're the same because Apple will lose them both is bootstrapping.
LordJohnWhorfin
Nov 28, 06:57 PM
If Apple pays Universal to compensate it for their losses due to iPod users being pirates, I will make sure I only procure pirate copies of Universal music and movies, since Universal has already been compensated. No need for them to get paid twice.
epitaphic
Aug 19, 05:53 PM
And I'm not convinced this is only an application problem. When I run Handbrake on the Quad G5 alone it uses just over two cores 203%
So what happened to:
Both Toast and Handbrake can use 4 cores EACH
Looking at the handbrake forums, speeds seem to vary drastically between users with the same machine. Definitely seems to be affected by whatever else you have running or configured in the OS or otherwise. I suppose the "cleanest" install to test is in the Apple store (I'm just assuming they do a clean ghost copy at shutdown or end of day?)
When I ran tests on the Mac Pro at the Apple Store last Saturday between Toast and/or Handbrake, their use of more cores alone and together was much better.
So your benchmarks show the Mac Pro using 15-33% less CPU than the G5? There's no doubt that Woodcrest is a superior chip architecture to the G5 (one would hope after 3 years) and so that's why you're seeing more FPS inspite of less CPU use. But why does it use less cores though? Seems like either its a software problem OR some hardware is being maxed (I/O or FSB perhaps?)
So would it be correct to say that the only app that is even remotely "Quadcore aware" is Toast? It seems like by the time professional apps are made to take advantage of 4 cores we'll probably be on more than 8! :eek:
If only they could build something in the CPU itself that delegates tasks to n cores, we'd all be sorted. :)
So what happened to:
Both Toast and Handbrake can use 4 cores EACH
Looking at the handbrake forums, speeds seem to vary drastically between users with the same machine. Definitely seems to be affected by whatever else you have running or configured in the OS or otherwise. I suppose the "cleanest" install to test is in the Apple store (I'm just assuming they do a clean ghost copy at shutdown or end of day?)
When I ran tests on the Mac Pro at the Apple Store last Saturday between Toast and/or Handbrake, their use of more cores alone and together was much better.
So your benchmarks show the Mac Pro using 15-33% less CPU than the G5? There's no doubt that Woodcrest is a superior chip architecture to the G5 (one would hope after 3 years) and so that's why you're seeing more FPS inspite of less CPU use. But why does it use less cores though? Seems like either its a software problem OR some hardware is being maxed (I/O or FSB perhaps?)
So would it be correct to say that the only app that is even remotely "Quadcore aware" is Toast? It seems like by the time professional apps are made to take advantage of 4 cores we'll probably be on more than 8! :eek:
If only they could build something in the CPU itself that delegates tasks to n cores, we'd all be sorted. :)
ZoomZoomZoom
Sep 19, 10:02 AM
You should thouroughly read a post before you quote and attempt to disprove it, or in this case, call the poster a name like fanboy...
The poster before you mentioned how these "sub-$1000" laptops are JUST starting to ship THIS WEEK, not a month ago as you claim. If Apple were to release new MBP on Monday and announce them as "shipping today," then Apple would only mere days behind, not a month.
P.S. If you skipped to the end of this post again and are about to reply angrily, please go back and read the post as you will better understand what I am trying to say...
I found information on another forum and read it a bit incorrectly.
Nonetheless, even after re-reading sources (which a quick google of "shipping merom laptop" will bring up), Apple is at minimum a week and a half behind, assuming that shipping in blindingly fast. And seeing as they didn't update MBPs today - and (assuming rumors are correct) they might update next week, this puts Apple a solid two and a half weeks behind.
And that's on sub-$1000 notebooks.
The poster before you mentioned how these "sub-$1000" laptops are JUST starting to ship THIS WEEK, not a month ago as you claim. If Apple were to release new MBP on Monday and announce them as "shipping today," then Apple would only mere days behind, not a month.
P.S. If you skipped to the end of this post again and are about to reply angrily, please go back and read the post as you will better understand what I am trying to say...
I found information on another forum and read it a bit incorrectly.
Nonetheless, even after re-reading sources (which a quick google of "shipping merom laptop" will bring up), Apple is at minimum a week and a half behind, assuming that shipping in blindingly fast. And seeing as they didn't update MBPs today - and (assuming rumors are correct) they might update next week, this puts Apple a solid two and a half weeks behind.
And that's on sub-$1000 notebooks.
milo
Sep 13, 07:05 AM
A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet.
Not true, according to the article. They said it wasn't easy, but they were able to max out all 8 cores. You can see the Activity Monitor graph all filled up.
It would be nice if 10.5 would allow a more 'blind' method to utilize these cores, versus having programmers specificly program for multi-core. Now that would be extremely helpful and allow a more simultanous workflow.
That's how it is now, at least with multiple apps. I bet it's possible to program for an unspecified number of multiple cores, and there may be apps doing it already.
I was interested to see that they were unable to max out CPU utilization on all 8 cores in the system. I hope it's due to the software these days not being ready to fully utilize more than one or two cores and not due to OSX's ability to scale to larger core counts. Since that's obviously where we're heading. Does anyone know about the potential for scalability of OSX to large numbers of CPU's/cores? I know some *nix varieties and BSD varieties do this really well, but one wonders if they were thinking this far in the future when they developed OSX. It'll be interesting to see...
Read the article again, they WERE able to max them out, just not easily. Based on that, OSX seems to be able to scale already. Developers just need to start writing apps that are more MP friendly.
Not true, according to the article. They said it wasn't easy, but they were able to max out all 8 cores. You can see the Activity Monitor graph all filled up.
It would be nice if 10.5 would allow a more 'blind' method to utilize these cores, versus having programmers specificly program for multi-core. Now that would be extremely helpful and allow a more simultanous workflow.
That's how it is now, at least with multiple apps. I bet it's possible to program for an unspecified number of multiple cores, and there may be apps doing it already.
I was interested to see that they were unable to max out CPU utilization on all 8 cores in the system. I hope it's due to the software these days not being ready to fully utilize more than one or two cores and not due to OSX's ability to scale to larger core counts. Since that's obviously where we're heading. Does anyone know about the potential for scalability of OSX to large numbers of CPU's/cores? I know some *nix varieties and BSD varieties do this really well, but one wonders if they were thinking this far in the future when they developed OSX. It'll be interesting to see...
Read the article again, they WERE able to max them out, just not easily. Based on that, OSX seems to be able to scale already. Developers just need to start writing apps that are more MP friendly.
evilgEEk
Aug 11, 03:58 PM
I'm eligible for a new phone in just five days. As of right now I'm going to get the Chocolate because I like the style. Couldn't really care less about listening to music on my phone, that's what my iPod's for. ;)
But...but...if Apple does release a phone and I've already bought the Chocolate then I'll be kicking myself to no end. But on the other hand, how likely is it that the iPhone will even work on Verizon?
Bah! I need a new phone! :(
But...but...if Apple does release a phone and I've already bought the Chocolate then I'll be kicking myself to no end. But on the other hand, how likely is it that the iPhone will even work on Verizon?
Bah! I need a new phone! :(
scottgroovez
Apr 8, 06:09 AM
Why anyone would ever choose to buy an Apple product at Best Buy over the Apple Store is beyond me. :confused:
I just ordered a Macbook pro from BB with 15% off and a further 8% cashback saving me just over �200.
I just ordered a Macbook pro from BB with 15% off and a further 8% cashback saving me just over �200.
technicolor
Sep 20, 04:12 AM
Ah, a mature, intelligent, well reasoned reply.
No, one that just ignores you and your inquiries because it was already clear where you were coming from..thus I feel no obligation to engage you in my thought process and your self important questioning. Has nothing to do with my maturity, and everything to do with my lack of caring about you or your opinion.
No, one that just ignores you and your inquiries because it was already clear where you were coming from..thus I feel no obligation to engage you in my thought process and your self important questioning. Has nothing to do with my maturity, and everything to do with my lack of caring about you or your opinion.
littleman23408
Dec 2, 08:43 AM
I hate to link to IGN, but here goes:
GT5 damage explained (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/113/1137446p1.html)
Confusion seems to have stemmed from its differing implementation across the game's extensive garage, a point that Sony further clarified. "Standard models have minor deformation and scratches," said Sony, "Premium cars have greater visible level of damage, and Premium racing models have the highest level of damage."
I can't open the links due to work internet, but they should have done equal damage to all cars. Besides, every real car dents and scratches pretty easily.
GT5 damage explained (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/113/1137446p1.html)
Confusion seems to have stemmed from its differing implementation across the game's extensive garage, a point that Sony further clarified. "Standard models have minor deformation and scratches," said Sony, "Premium cars have greater visible level of damage, and Premium racing models have the highest level of damage."
I can't open the links due to work internet, but they should have done equal damage to all cars. Besides, every real car dents and scratches pretty easily.
Chaszmyr
Aug 15, 01:00 PM
I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?
I couldn't say for sure, but I would guess that the current version of FCP was carefully optimized for the G5, and has not yet undergone the same treatment for Intel chips.
I couldn't say for sure, but I would guess that the current version of FCP was carefully optimized for the G5, and has not yet undergone the same treatment for Intel chips.
FreeState
Feb 28, 08:23 PM
They still can not have valid sacramental marriage
Fornication doesn't matter if the person doesn't care about the religious connotations of marriage
Here let me fix that for you:
They Gays and lesbians still can not have a valid sacramental Catholic marriage.
Fornication doesn't matter if the person doesn't care about the religious connotations of marriage Catholicism view of fornication and marriage.
---
There are Christian Churches that perform marriage for any loving couple, regardless of orientation. The Catholic Church does not dictate doctrine for all Christians.
Fornication doesn't matter if the person doesn't care about the religious connotations of marriage
Here let me fix that for you:
They Gays and lesbians still can not have a valid sacramental Catholic marriage.
Fornication doesn't matter if the person doesn't care about the religious connotations of marriage Catholicism view of fornication and marriage.
---
There are Christian Churches that perform marriage for any loving couple, regardless of orientation. The Catholic Church does not dictate doctrine for all Christians.
NinjaHERO
Apr 11, 11:38 AM
I was already pushing it to wait this long with my 3G. I don't think I can wait another 4 months+ from June.
When does the EVO 2 come out?
When does the EVO 2 come out?
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 03:30 PM
I don't get nearly as many dropped calls when switching between towers like I did when I used T-Mobile and Cingular.
You know as well as I do that has to do with the signal, not whether it is Code division or time division. If you claim differently, show me reputable references.
You know as well as I do that has to do with the signal, not whether it is Code division or time division. If you claim differently, show me reputable references.
tk421
Apr 5, 06:10 PM
Really? And yet, it seems to be good enough for the top directors in the industry.... some of the recent Academy nominated films were all edited on Final Cut, including the Cohen Brothers' "True Grit", and "Winter's Bone". Also, David Fincher and Francis Ford Coppola used FCP on their last films... these are all people that have access and can afford cutting their films on AVID and yet, they recently choose Final Cut Pro... so why do people even question it? :rolleyes:
It's good enough for a few top directors in the industry, but not very many. They are the exception, not the rule.
Final Cut needs better media management, and also Avid-like support for multiple editors on a single project. I like Final Cut a lot, but Avid has some clear advantages for a feature film. Here's hoping this next version has some big new features!
It's good enough for a few top directors in the industry, but not very many. They are the exception, not the rule.
Final Cut needs better media management, and also Avid-like support for multiple editors on a single project. I like Final Cut a lot, but Avid has some clear advantages for a feature film. Here's hoping this next version has some big new features!
Evangelion
Sep 14, 01:14 AM
Didn't you get the memo, Hyperthreading was a joke.
At worst, it slowed performance down by few percent. At best, it gave substantial boost in performance. And multitasking-tests clearly benefitted from HyperThreading. That said, Intel dropped it, because it apparently consumed too much power. But we might see HT in some future Intel-CPU's at some point, you never know.
HT as such is not a bad idea. Sun UltraSparc T1 uses such a scheme extensively.
At worst, it slowed performance down by few percent. At best, it gave substantial boost in performance. And multitasking-tests clearly benefitted from HyperThreading. That said, Intel dropped it, because it apparently consumed too much power. But we might see HT in some future Intel-CPU's at some point, you never know.
HT as such is not a bad idea. Sun UltraSparc T1 uses such a scheme extensively.
milo
Nov 29, 11:05 AM
"I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way"
Well, I can't see why Universal wouldn't do that...getting paid money for doing nothing? Sure, I'll have some too.
But I can definitely see why Apple wouldn't do that. Universal could threaten to yank all their content from iTunes if Apple refuses but at this point that might hurt Universal more than Apple.
Well, I can't see why Universal wouldn't do that...getting paid money for doing nothing? Sure, I'll have some too.
But I can definitely see why Apple wouldn't do that. Universal could threaten to yank all their content from iTunes if Apple refuses but at this point that might hurt Universal more than Apple.
emotion
Jul 20, 09:05 AM
Where you are going to see the difference is when you multi-task.
For Example: Burn a Blueray disk, render a FinalCut Pro movie, download your digital camera RAW files into Adobe Lightroom and run a batch, and watch your favorite movie from the iTunes Movie Store all without a single hiccup.
You're going to run into the hard disk being the bottle neck then. In principle though I agree with you.
For Example: Burn a Blueray disk, render a FinalCut Pro movie, download your digital camera RAW files into Adobe Lightroom and run a batch, and watch your favorite movie from the iTunes Movie Store all without a single hiccup.
You're going to run into the hard disk being the bottle neck then. In principle though I agree with you.
hayesk
Mar 26, 02:39 PM
Yet another unimpressive "major" update to an O/S that's showing it's age and irrelevance. (Hell it's already to most consumers nothing more than "That thing you gotta hook your iPad up to to make it work.) Compared to the iDevice world, the computer side of Apple has ground to a halt. Is it intentional I wonder...? ;)
Enough!! Combine MacOS and iOS already!!! The transition is so painfully slow, would someone else in tech get off their lazy ass and prod these guys to move a LITTLE quicker?!?
Consumers don't care about the OS at all, on a desktop or on an iOS device. They care about using their computer to do tasks. The more the OS becomes invisible to the user, the better.
I also have to laugh at the people complaining that Lion has nothing to offer at the same time they are complaining that it's turning into iOS. Do you want the OS to progress or stay the same? Make up your minds. What do these people want Lion to have. I'm guessing they can't imagine anything beyond including some third party utilities that they already use.
Enough!! Combine MacOS and iOS already!!! The transition is so painfully slow, would someone else in tech get off their lazy ass and prod these guys to move a LITTLE quicker?!?
Consumers don't care about the OS at all, on a desktop or on an iOS device. They care about using their computer to do tasks. The more the OS becomes invisible to the user, the better.
I also have to laugh at the people complaining that Lion has nothing to offer at the same time they are complaining that it's turning into iOS. Do you want the OS to progress or stay the same? Make up your minds. What do these people want Lion to have. I'm guessing they can't imagine anything beyond including some third party utilities that they already use.
bankshot
Aug 7, 07:12 PM
As others have said, Time Machine is likely either a direct port of Sun's ZFS, or an equivalent implementation in HFS+. Actually, that's an interesting point -- if it's ZFS, it'll require a reformat in order to use it. If they did it themselves in HFS+, that's a lot more useful for anything besides brand new machines. Though ZFS is a much more modern design, despite all the things Apple's done to extend HFS+ in recent years (journaling, case-sensitive option, etc). Might be good to make a clean break and move forward.
Anyway, no real surprise there, unless you count the fancy glitz that Apple put on top of it. And of course, who's surprised when they do that? ;)
What I'd like to know more about is Spotlight. It was one of the most disappointing features in Tiger for me. It was supposed to revolutionize how you use the computer, but it turned out to be extremely slow and almost useless to me. I suggested from day one -- in fact from the day Steve demoed Tiger at WWDC in 2004 -- that Spotlight should not only index your online drives, but also network drives and offline media (backup CDs and DVDs). The latter two are far more useful to me personally, as I have data scattered across several different computers and on dozens of backups.
According to today's keynote, Apple has finally added support for network drives. But I wonder -- does this mean only other Leopard Macs, or any shared drive that the Mac can connect to? Can I index a Windows shared drive from my Mac, or even a Unix NFS mount? Or is it only other Macs? Once again, if it's limited to other Leopard Macs, then this would be useless for a lot of people (mostly ME! :D).
Also, will they add indexing of offline media? There's no mention of it on the Leopard Spotlight page. Do I still have time to suggest it (again)? Hmmm....
Finally, gotta wonder what those "top secret" features are, and why so secret? Maybe they might not get done in time for release, and therefore Apple doesn't want to look bad like MS pulling Vista features left and right? Surely there's not enough time for a competitor to steal the idea and get it out before Apple does? Even if "next spring" means early June... That's no time at all in large scale software projects.
Anyway, no real surprise there, unless you count the fancy glitz that Apple put on top of it. And of course, who's surprised when they do that? ;)
What I'd like to know more about is Spotlight. It was one of the most disappointing features in Tiger for me. It was supposed to revolutionize how you use the computer, but it turned out to be extremely slow and almost useless to me. I suggested from day one -- in fact from the day Steve demoed Tiger at WWDC in 2004 -- that Spotlight should not only index your online drives, but also network drives and offline media (backup CDs and DVDs). The latter two are far more useful to me personally, as I have data scattered across several different computers and on dozens of backups.
According to today's keynote, Apple has finally added support for network drives. But I wonder -- does this mean only other Leopard Macs, or any shared drive that the Mac can connect to? Can I index a Windows shared drive from my Mac, or even a Unix NFS mount? Or is it only other Macs? Once again, if it's limited to other Leopard Macs, then this would be useless for a lot of people (mostly ME! :D).
Also, will they add indexing of offline media? There's no mention of it on the Leopard Spotlight page. Do I still have time to suggest it (again)? Hmmm....
Finally, gotta wonder what those "top secret" features are, and why so secret? Maybe they might not get done in time for release, and therefore Apple doesn't want to look bad like MS pulling Vista features left and right? Surely there's not enough time for a competitor to steal the idea and get it out before Apple does? Even if "next spring" means early June... That's no time at all in large scale software projects.
HecubusPro
Sep 19, 12:17 PM
Playstation?
The video game market is completely different, the analogy is just a stupid attempt at making people that think Apple should realease up-to-date hardware look stupid. Have fun at that, it didnt do much in convincing me that I should buy a CD when a C2D is just around the corner.
All you people trying to make us feel like complete morons for waiting and wanting a new (AND BETTER) chip, what's wrong with you?! Did you just buy a MBP and feel the need to piss on everyone that is about to get a beter machine than you? Or is it just PMS or some other hormonal condition?
I agree completely with your sentiment, though to clarify, the Sega Saturn came out in a surprise launch several months before the PlayStation, and it lost miserably.
The video game market is completely different, the analogy is just a stupid attempt at making people that think Apple should realease up-to-date hardware look stupid. Have fun at that, it didnt do much in convincing me that I should buy a CD when a C2D is just around the corner.
All you people trying to make us feel like complete morons for waiting and wanting a new (AND BETTER) chip, what's wrong with you?! Did you just buy a MBP and feel the need to piss on everyone that is about to get a beter machine than you? Or is it just PMS or some other hormonal condition?
I agree completely with your sentiment, though to clarify, the Sega Saturn came out in a surprise launch several months before the PlayStation, and it lost miserably.
No comments:
Post a Comment