janstett
Sep 15, 08:26 AM
And of course, NT started as a reimplementation of VMS for a failed Intel RISC CPU...
More pedantic details for those who are interested... :)
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
More pedantic details for those who are interested... :)
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
toughboy
Aug 26, 04:11 PM
If the power consumption is the same... does that mean that the Merom and the current chips suck the same amount energy while going full throttle?
If the above is true, if you turned down the Merom to match the speed of the current chips, wouldn't the Merom be drawing 20% less power?
In other words if the Merom and the current chip were both going 60 mph down the freeway, would the Merom be drawing less power?
Am I missing something here (such as the basics of electricity, the basic way that chips work, etc.)?
512ke
Maybe its just efficiency... As days past and R&D continues to evolve, chips will be more efficient and they'll produce more power for less energy..
If the above is true, if you turned down the Merom to match the speed of the current chips, wouldn't the Merom be drawing 20% less power?
In other words if the Merom and the current chip were both going 60 mph down the freeway, would the Merom be drawing less power?
Am I missing something here (such as the basics of electricity, the basic way that chips work, etc.)?
512ke
Maybe its just efficiency... As days past and R&D continues to evolve, chips will be more efficient and they'll produce more power for less energy..
puggles
Jun 14, 07:42 PM
ok definitely not going to radio shack... they changed the time from 7AM to 1PM and are now giving out pins which will put your name on a list and they will call you as they are received to the store.... definitely not guaranteed! They also seemed really desperate for my business. Im guessing they also made the 1PM time so you will miss other pre orders and be stuck with them....unless you can pre order with apple and radio shack and cancel the apple one if radio shack does work out?
aristotle
Apr 6, 03:23 PM
It'll be 100,001 when it comes out in the UK when mine gets delivered..... Roll on Saturday!:D
Congrats, you will be able to play with the handful of apps designed for it.
;)
Congrats, you will be able to play with the handful of apps designed for it.
;)
shelterpaw
Sep 13, 12:05 PM
Yes, that's true.
It's also true that most of the time, most people aren't even maxing out ONE core never mind eight.
And when they do, their program won't get any faster unless it's multithreaded and able to run on multiple cores at once.
The Mac Pro isn't for most people. It's for professionals and professional applications, which are usally multithreaded, and will take advantage of the capabilities.
If you have a complaint about all these cores and not being able to take advantage of them, then this is not the computer for you. You're probably not using the software that will take advantage of them, so let it go and stop whining about it. For the those of us that do, this is great news.
It's also true that most of the time, most people aren't even maxing out ONE core never mind eight.
And when they do, their program won't get any faster unless it's multithreaded and able to run on multiple cores at once.
The Mac Pro isn't for most people. It's for professionals and professional applications, which are usally multithreaded, and will take advantage of the capabilities.
If you have a complaint about all these cores and not being able to take advantage of them, then this is not the computer for you. You're probably not using the software that will take advantage of them, so let it go and stop whining about it. For the those of us that do, this is great news.
4God
Jul 27, 10:00 AM
My credit card is melting just thinking about WWDC. :D
portishead
Apr 12, 12:54 PM
Then that just begs the question, "why haven't these people left already?" FCP has been fairly stagnant for years. There are plenty of other alternatives, so doesn't that kinda make them fanboyish too for sticking it out when up to this point Apple has given zero hints about when or how it will take FCP to the next level?
I'm not in the video editing biz, but if the pro s/w I use in my profession hobbled my efficiency and workflow the way you are carping about FCP, and there were viable alternatives, I would abandon it quicker than pigeon can snatch a bread crumb. Just sayin'.
People just love to complain. Yes Apple has been a little behind in the NLE business lately. They can't be on top all the time. Avid has made fantastic strides lately, and so has Adobe, although I would never advise using Premiere. You have to remember though Avid made a lot of bad moves, from nearly dropping Mac support to their closed hardware system. Just recently have they finally started to look like they got it together. FCP is being updated today, so all this nonsense about apple neglecting the pro market can stop. You may not like the update, but from what I've heard (not much) it's going to be pretty amazing.
I'm not in the video editing biz, but if the pro s/w I use in my profession hobbled my efficiency and workflow the way you are carping about FCP, and there were viable alternatives, I would abandon it quicker than pigeon can snatch a bread crumb. Just sayin'.
People just love to complain. Yes Apple has been a little behind in the NLE business lately. They can't be on top all the time. Avid has made fantastic strides lately, and so has Adobe, although I would never advise using Premiere. You have to remember though Avid made a lot of bad moves, from nearly dropping Mac support to their closed hardware system. Just recently have they finally started to look like they got it together. FCP is being updated today, so all this nonsense about apple neglecting the pro market can stop. You may not like the update, but from what I've heard (not much) it's going to be pretty amazing.
Pez555
Apr 11, 12:54 PM
grrrr stop posting this macrumors, i want the iphone 5 in june!
epitaphic
Aug 20, 08:07 AM
Not every professional is going to need more than 4 cores let alone be willing to pay for it. I think the more processors, the more specialized the computer is going to become.
This is precisely the transition we've been seeing for some time, becoming more and more apparent every 6 months. Computers are no longer general purpose machines. It's already happened to consumers: machines today are way more than what's needed for web and email. For prosumers, its just about right, for gamers, you can never have enough single core + GPU power.
I think its fair to say to that the Mac Pro is in a way too specialized already. If you look at it's server RAM for example, which group of professionals benefits from its strengths? How many professionals will actually be able to get close to using all four cores during their normal workflow?
The way i see it, there are about 8 mainstream lines of professionals:
- 3D Artists
- Coders
- Graphic Designers
- IT
- Multimedia Artists
- Musicians
- Photographers
- Video Editors
Who can fully utilize 4 cores right now? I'd say possibly 3D Artists, Musicians(quad G5 only), and IT.
Sure everyone else will probably get a 15% kick in performance in some apps but for the most part, 4 core Mac Pro is not going to make your apps run any faster (it does give the machine more headroom for ample multitasking though). Of course at the moment there is only a 4 core Mac Pro so it's a bit academic to discuss the fact that a 2 core Mac Pro would be just as productive and much more cost effective. However, as most of you probably already know, there are good chances of an 8 core Mac Pro in January.
Sidenote: This sort of update (new machine in August, new machine following January) is not new. It happened in 2002-2003 resulting in the top of the line machine introduced in August to drop 40% in price in January.
So the interesting thing to speculate now is, if most of us have a hard time utilizing a quad to its full potential, what would an 8 core do for you? I know its not cost effective for apple at the moment, but in the future I suspect we'll be seeing 4-8 lines of professional macs.
This is precisely the transition we've been seeing for some time, becoming more and more apparent every 6 months. Computers are no longer general purpose machines. It's already happened to consumers: machines today are way more than what's needed for web and email. For prosumers, its just about right, for gamers, you can never have enough single core + GPU power.
I think its fair to say to that the Mac Pro is in a way too specialized already. If you look at it's server RAM for example, which group of professionals benefits from its strengths? How many professionals will actually be able to get close to using all four cores during their normal workflow?
The way i see it, there are about 8 mainstream lines of professionals:
- 3D Artists
- Coders
- Graphic Designers
- IT
- Multimedia Artists
- Musicians
- Photographers
- Video Editors
Who can fully utilize 4 cores right now? I'd say possibly 3D Artists, Musicians(quad G5 only), and IT.
Sure everyone else will probably get a 15% kick in performance in some apps but for the most part, 4 core Mac Pro is not going to make your apps run any faster (it does give the machine more headroom for ample multitasking though). Of course at the moment there is only a 4 core Mac Pro so it's a bit academic to discuss the fact that a 2 core Mac Pro would be just as productive and much more cost effective. However, as most of you probably already know, there are good chances of an 8 core Mac Pro in January.
Sidenote: This sort of update (new machine in August, new machine following January) is not new. It happened in 2002-2003 resulting in the top of the line machine introduced in August to drop 40% in price in January.
So the interesting thing to speculate now is, if most of us have a hard time utilizing a quad to its full potential, what would an 8 core do for you? I know its not cost effective for apple at the moment, but in the future I suspect we'll be seeing 4-8 lines of professional macs.
cmaier
Apr 20, 11:58 AM
According to the analysis, it is in the suit, as part of the trade dress claims.
Not as a separate thing. It's the grid IN COMBINATION with the other things that constitutes the trade dress.
Not as a separate thing. It's the grid IN COMBINATION with the other things that constitutes the trade dress.
Macnoviz
Jul 22, 03:03 AM
So I read in this thread that Kentsfield and Clovertown ARE compatible with Conroe and Woodcrest sockets (respectively) (Cloverton or Clovertown?)
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed. So when 128 core CPUs come out in ~10 years time, will we still be considering dual core CPUs as fast enough for our use?
I seem to remember that when the original DOS operating system was created, its RAM was limited. I can't remember exactly to how much, but it was decided that people would never use more than a few kilobytes of memory. Now we are arguing that Mac should provide no less than a gigabyte! Now we are moving to 64 bit processing, with its capability to address a few exobytes, or millions of Terabytes of storage, it seems impossible that we will ever need 128bit computing. But, no doubt, one day we will.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to), I dare say it will take a lot of memory to do, and even more processing power to manage effectively, especially if we wanted to "live" inside computers, as we will no doubt want to do someday.
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
I agree with your point on never saying a computer is too powerful, although living in computers is probably not going to happen. Sounds a bit too Matrix-like for me.
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed. So when 128 core CPUs come out in ~10 years time, will we still be considering dual core CPUs as fast enough for our use?
I seem to remember that when the original DOS operating system was created, its RAM was limited. I can't remember exactly to how much, but it was decided that people would never use more than a few kilobytes of memory. Now we are arguing that Mac should provide no less than a gigabyte! Now we are moving to 64 bit processing, with its capability to address a few exobytes, or millions of Terabytes of storage, it seems impossible that we will ever need 128bit computing. But, no doubt, one day we will.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to), I dare say it will take a lot of memory to do, and even more processing power to manage effectively, especially if we wanted to "live" inside computers, as we will no doubt want to do someday.
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
I agree with your point on never saying a computer is too powerful, although living in computers is probably not going to happen. Sounds a bit too Matrix-like for me.
netdog
Aug 11, 02:42 PM
MS Windows has about 95% of the world market...doesn't mean the technology is better.:)
A phone that works in most of the world is better for many of us. Who wants a phone that won't work in Europe for instance? Last I checked, my Mac works here just fine.
A phone that works in most of the world is better for many of us. Who wants a phone that won't work in Europe for instance? Last I checked, my Mac works here just fine.
Daremo
Apr 19, 01:30 PM
Some advice to those who make these images about "LOL'ing at Apple"... Try proof reading so we don't LOL at you.
CaptMurdock
Mar 18, 12:21 AM
I expect better from both of you.
Boy, are you in for a disappointment. :rolleyes:
Boy, are you in for a disappointment. :rolleyes:
rangrbob
Jun 22, 07:08 PM
The Radio Shack in my city just received their pre-order shipment. They got 2. They had a total of 6 pre-orders.
Fotek2001
Aug 7, 03:27 PM
Not a glimpse of the Finder...! :eek:
sonnys
Jul 15, 05:04 PM
Too many people are complaining about rumored information that isn't even reliable, and most likely incorrect.
I think we can look at what Apple has done with its other lineups this past year as a guide to the future. Based on what we've seen, I don't think Apple will be redesigning the Mac Pro case -- it's large enough to accommodate anything they wish to throw in there. I also think it's a great industrial design, physically alluding to the power within.
The one question I do have is why is the Mac Pro the last to make this transition, why has it taken so long? Is it simply due to chip availability, is it due to some radical new design, or is it because the Mac Pro is Apple's flagship product and Apple is working long and hard to wedge in some great new technology?
Great new technologies always made their way to the Power Macs first, and then trickled down the line. I have every faith that the Mac Pro will continue this tradition, especially since the Mac Pro will be competing with other high-end Xeon workstations. Apple will need something in the Mac Pro that nobody else has, and it will also need to utilize Intel's fastest chips in order to dispel any notions of the system being weaker than the competition in terms of speed -- this is a dark cloud over the Mac that finally needs to be cleared.
Having two optical drives makes sense if one of the drives is going to be BluRay -- isn't BluRay incompatible with writing DVD and HD-DVD content? It would make sense if one of the drives was BluRay, the other was HD-DVD, giving Mac Pro users access to the full spectrum of DVD authoring hardware. If two optical bays are provided, I believe this type of configuration will be offered.
I'll be watching the announcement closely, although my Dual 2.5 GHz G5 (single core) handles everything I throw at it and has never ever given me reason to even want to upgrade. However, if the new Mac Pro hits 3 GHz I may be very tempted... if it doesn't, I'll wait it out. If the new high end Mac Pro doesn't go to 3 GHz like Dell and others, the Mac Pro will sink plenty fast.
I think we can look at what Apple has done with its other lineups this past year as a guide to the future. Based on what we've seen, I don't think Apple will be redesigning the Mac Pro case -- it's large enough to accommodate anything they wish to throw in there. I also think it's a great industrial design, physically alluding to the power within.
The one question I do have is why is the Mac Pro the last to make this transition, why has it taken so long? Is it simply due to chip availability, is it due to some radical new design, or is it because the Mac Pro is Apple's flagship product and Apple is working long and hard to wedge in some great new technology?
Great new technologies always made their way to the Power Macs first, and then trickled down the line. I have every faith that the Mac Pro will continue this tradition, especially since the Mac Pro will be competing with other high-end Xeon workstations. Apple will need something in the Mac Pro that nobody else has, and it will also need to utilize Intel's fastest chips in order to dispel any notions of the system being weaker than the competition in terms of speed -- this is a dark cloud over the Mac that finally needs to be cleared.
Having two optical drives makes sense if one of the drives is going to be BluRay -- isn't BluRay incompatible with writing DVD and HD-DVD content? It would make sense if one of the drives was BluRay, the other was HD-DVD, giving Mac Pro users access to the full spectrum of DVD authoring hardware. If two optical bays are provided, I believe this type of configuration will be offered.
I'll be watching the announcement closely, although my Dual 2.5 GHz G5 (single core) handles everything I throw at it and has never ever given me reason to even want to upgrade. However, if the new Mac Pro hits 3 GHz I may be very tempted... if it doesn't, I'll wait it out. If the new high end Mac Pro doesn't go to 3 GHz like Dell and others, the Mac Pro will sink plenty fast.
Digital Skunk
Mar 22, 12:55 PM
Assuming this gets out of vaporware status, it looks pretty good. The custom interface also looks good. Apple better have some improvements to the UI (ahem, notifications) in iOS 5
Sorry, completely forgot about that.
iOS rocks in apps, but it does suck *** in terms of notifications and true multitasking.
Apple should've been the ones to buy Palm.
Sorry, completely forgot about that.
iOS rocks in apps, but it does suck *** in terms of notifications and true multitasking.
Apple should've been the ones to buy Palm.
Northgrove
Mar 26, 11:21 AM
Damn, this was confusing. I can barely decide between the 24 versions you mentioned. Add Windows 7 Starter, a version meant only for Notebooks. Still only 4 versions.
Windows 7 is available in six editions, and three of those (bolded) are available through normal retail channels.
- Windows 7 Starter
- Windows 7 Home Basic
- Windows 7 Home Premium
- Windows 7 Professional
- Windows 7 Enterprise
- Windows 7 Ultimate
You also need to decide on the architecture before purchase, unlike OS X.
If you count those (they are packaged in different boxes after all), this brings the number up to 11. Starter doesn't come in a 64-bit edition.
Finally, this of course doesn't include the server editions of the Windows 7 kernel.
Windows 7 is available in six editions, and three of those (bolded) are available through normal retail channels.
- Windows 7 Starter
- Windows 7 Home Basic
- Windows 7 Home Premium
- Windows 7 Professional
- Windows 7 Enterprise
- Windows 7 Ultimate
You also need to decide on the architecture before purchase, unlike OS X.
If you count those (they are packaged in different boxes after all), this brings the number up to 11. Starter doesn't come in a 64-bit edition.
Finally, this of course doesn't include the server editions of the Windows 7 kernel.
Funkymonk
Mar 22, 05:16 PM
man I may pick up the samsung 10.1. similar specs +thinner and lighter than the ipad + honeycomb? sign my ass up!
Dr Kevorkian94
Apr 11, 02:25 PM
it better be a hell of a upgrade if they wait that long, because if not it will be unacceptable.
DeathChill
Mar 31, 09:52 PM
No, it's "make up a fake day" day.
Good. I declare it dog moustache day.
Good. I declare it dog moustache day.
Hellhammer
Dec 4, 02:34 AM
Cool, Thanks. You must be pretty far?
A-spec level 19. Haven't played it for a week now, maybe I should play this weekend and get it to 25.
A-spec level 19. Haven't played it for a week now, maybe I should play this weekend and get it to 25.
Vegasman
Apr 27, 09:08 AM
Side story: the credit card companies know exactly where I am better then the cell companies. Every time I swipe my credit or debit card, they know where I am. When I travel for vacation, I am very likely to get a call from my credit card company (on my cell) asking where, when and how long I will be traveling. They know every store and every purchase I've ever made on a credit card.
Are you somehow trying to imply that because the credit card company knows so much about you that it is OK to keep that information unencrypted on your phone and backup on your computer?
All people are asking for is that personal information is kept encrypted and secured. No more. No less.
Are you somehow trying to imply that because the credit card company knows so much about you that it is OK to keep that information unencrypted on your phone and backup on your computer?
All people are asking for is that personal information is kept encrypted and secured. No more. No less.
No comments:
Post a Comment