thunng8
Apr 9, 08:52 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
TDP != Max power draw
It's not. See my earlier post in this thread. Maximum power dissipation is usually 20-30% more.
But in the case of the Sb quad core the figure seems to be in excess of 50%, not 20%
TDP != Max power draw
It's not. See my earlier post in this thread. Maximum power dissipation is usually 20-30% more.
But in the case of the Sb quad core the figure seems to be in excess of 50%, not 20%
layte
Mar 31, 03:04 PM
From now on, companies hoping to receive early access to Google's most up-to-date software will need approval of their plans.
Emphasis on the important bit for those who didn't bother to actually read the article. If you want to wait a bit, you can get the code and do whatever you want. Well that's my reading of it anyway, but please, don't let get in the way of giving the new enemy number one a good kicking.
Emphasis on the important bit for those who didn't bother to actually read the article. If you want to wait a bit, you can get the code and do whatever you want. Well that's my reading of it anyway, but please, don't let get in the way of giving the new enemy number one a good kicking.
Silentwave
Aug 6, 10:19 AM
Well...I've used and ENJOYED iMac G4 for five years which is still going strong by the way. I just can't help but wonder how stupid and childish it is to expect that Apple will upgrade it already awesome MBP. The Merom CPU has very minor perforformance benefit over Yonah until Santa Rosa is out next year. It has double the L2 catch, 140M more transistors and 3 Watt/hour more cons (34W/H) than Yonah (31W/H). Conroe with faster FSB is a totally different story. So I personally have nothing against those poor souls expecting new notebooks but sympothy.
The benchmarks show it actually has better performance with almost exactly the same battery life.
I'm positive Apple will go merom ASAP simply because their competition will, and it is a 64 bit chip.
The benchmarks show it actually has better performance with almost exactly the same battery life.
I'm positive Apple will go merom ASAP simply because their competition will, and it is a 64 bit chip.
jeanlain
Apr 5, 05:16 PM
I'm not trolling, this is an honest question. But isn't a Final Cut pretty much worthless for commercial use without a way to put the results on Blu-Ray?
Final Cut does a bit more than disc authoring.
Final Cut does a bit more than disc authoring.
Eraserhead
Mar 23, 01:50 AM
These things don't travel very fast.
I was having a look on Google and a container ship only takes 20 days or so to get from China to Europe, and a military ship would be faster - so you don't need that much time to get ships into place.
And China to Europe by ship is a long way (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=hkg-sin-trv-dxb-cai-gib-sou&MS=wls&DU=km).
I was having a look on Google and a container ship only takes 20 days or so to get from China to Europe, and a military ship would be faster - so you don't need that much time to get ships into place.
And China to Europe by ship is a long way (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=hkg-sin-trv-dxb-cai-gib-sou&MS=wls&DU=km).
jholzner
Jul 27, 03:16 PM
Nice news from intel, good for WWDC ...
... Apple will probably announce right before, since SJ said long ago no hard announcements at WWDC.
Of course he reverses A LOT :eek:
Can you show me where he said that? I don't recall hearing that his year. In the past I recall them stating that but it was only for the particular WWDC not a blanket statement. They intro'd the G5 Powermac at a WWDC.
... Apple will probably announce right before, since SJ said long ago no hard announcements at WWDC.
Of course he reverses A LOT :eek:
Can you show me where he said that? I don't recall hearing that his year. In the past I recall them stating that but it was only for the particular WWDC not a blanket statement. They intro'd the G5 Powermac at a WWDC.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 12:17 PM
He hasn't been carrying this around for 50 years. Did you actually read the article?
I read most of it. I haven't been carrying my birth certificate. It spent most of its time im Mom's china closet, where it still faded.
I read most of it. I haven't been carrying my birth certificate. It spent most of its time im Mom's china closet, where it still faded.
lazyrighteye
Aug 11, 10:50 AM
Using TimeMachine, Steve is going to release it two years ago.
That made my Friday... which may actually be a sad comment on things in my world. :D
That made my Friday... which may actually be a sad comment on things in my world. :D
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.
EETFUK
Apr 8, 12:01 AM
It's great that BB sells them. I just walked right in and bought my iPad 2 instead of waiting for a month or longer from Apple. BB was happy to take my cash. haha.
meanmusic
Aug 27, 10:33 PM
Core 2 Duo is here. Looks like Toshiba is first out of the gate with Core 2 Duo laptops:
http://www.toshibadirect.com:80/td/b2c/pdet.to?poid=347885&coid=-30600&seg=HHO
http://www.toshibadirect.com:80/td/b2c/pdet.to?poid=347885&coid=-30600&seg=HHO
Sodner
Apr 8, 06:56 AM
another low for apple, i ordered Mar 19th still waiting ...
fiasco just continues, does not look nice apple.
Why is this Apple's fault? Please tell me.
fiasco just continues, does not look nice apple.
Why is this Apple's fault? Please tell me.
LethalWolfe
Apr 10, 09:28 PM
Well, yeah, it will probably make more people happy, but it will be fun to see all the people bitching and moaning around here.
If I think the new FCP sucks I'll be b*tching and moaning too. ;)
Okay, okay, so they have done NAB (they've never done AES, though, that I'm certain). But still: They pulled out of everything in the last couple years. Why come back to NAB? Why not just do a small-scale announcement outside of NAB's timeframe so as to maximize press?
Apple was at the SuperMeet last year but it was totally forgettable. Adobe and Avid blew them out of the water. Why not do it at NAB when the entire industry is focused on what's happening there? All the industry press is at NAB and a ton of your target demo, especially the people that can best 'evangelize' your product, is there as well.
Was the supermeet focused on something else at one point? Because otherwise that sounds a little hard to believe that a usergroup would exist for a product that wasn't out yet...
Not to mention it's the 10th anniversary of the Supermeet and FCP debuted in '99.
Lethal
If I think the new FCP sucks I'll be b*tching and moaning too. ;)
Okay, okay, so they have done NAB (they've never done AES, though, that I'm certain). But still: They pulled out of everything in the last couple years. Why come back to NAB? Why not just do a small-scale announcement outside of NAB's timeframe so as to maximize press?
Apple was at the SuperMeet last year but it was totally forgettable. Adobe and Avid blew them out of the water. Why not do it at NAB when the entire industry is focused on what's happening there? All the industry press is at NAB and a ton of your target demo, especially the people that can best 'evangelize' your product, is there as well.
Was the supermeet focused on something else at one point? Because otherwise that sounds a little hard to believe that a usergroup would exist for a product that wasn't out yet...
Not to mention it's the 10th anniversary of the Supermeet and FCP debuted in '99.
Lethal
dernhelm
Aug 7, 04:11 PM
Maybe not in a client type computer but it exists in Windows Server 2003 and it is called Volume Shadow Copy.
Of curse it doesn't look as nice !
You're the closest so far, except that it is by turns both not as sophisticated as a Snapshot, and in some sense more sophisticated. A snapshot allows you to "capture" the current state of a disk at a particular point in time - further new updates do not impact the snapshot. This assures a consistent backup as of a given point in time. This is not what Apple is doing here, as they are simply storing the old version of the file on the backup system.
However, in Time Machine, "snapshots" are not deliberate actions, they occur everytime something is changed. It would be tedious/near impossible to restore your entire disk back to a certain known good point using Time Machine - but that's a SysAdmin thing. It is almost simplicity itself to restore a given file or set of files back to what they were 30 minutes ago. And that is something that "everyman" needs a lot. If your choices are your current corrupt version, or the version as of the last snapshot, that is often a choice between bad and worse.
Of curse it doesn't look as nice !
You're the closest so far, except that it is by turns both not as sophisticated as a Snapshot, and in some sense more sophisticated. A snapshot allows you to "capture" the current state of a disk at a particular point in time - further new updates do not impact the snapshot. This assures a consistent backup as of a given point in time. This is not what Apple is doing here, as they are simply storing the old version of the file on the backup system.
However, in Time Machine, "snapshots" are not deliberate actions, they occur everytime something is changed. It would be tedious/near impossible to restore your entire disk back to a certain known good point using Time Machine - but that's a SysAdmin thing. It is almost simplicity itself to restore a given file or set of files back to what they were 30 minutes ago. And that is something that "everyman" needs a lot. If your choices are your current corrupt version, or the version as of the last snapshot, that is often a choice between bad and worse.
dernhelm
Aug 7, 03:53 PM
I am not entirely clear on what all CoreAnimation does and does not do, but I'm wondering if it and RIUI are not related at some level....
I voted Time Machine. I'm not even sure I'd really use it. But it's a neat idea, and the implementation looks to be nothing less than stunning.
These were my top two as well. I just didn't have quite enough information on how Core Animation is actually set up to vote for it. It's also hard to get real excited about a developer-enabling feature, but it could certainly lead to some cool apps. It's also great that they're eating their own dogfood and using it to code Time Machine.
Time machine was my vote mostly because of its wide appeal. This looks awesome, and if it is as effortless as it sounds, may even be a reason to buy some NAS storage and hook it up at home. The demo I saw was simply amazing.
Great work apple. Now get those Core 2 Duo chips in the iMac and I'll be all set. :)
I voted Time Machine. I'm not even sure I'd really use it. But it's a neat idea, and the implementation looks to be nothing less than stunning.
These were my top two as well. I just didn't have quite enough information on how Core Animation is actually set up to vote for it. It's also hard to get real excited about a developer-enabling feature, but it could certainly lead to some cool apps. It's also great that they're eating their own dogfood and using it to code Time Machine.
Time machine was my vote mostly because of its wide appeal. This looks awesome, and if it is as effortless as it sounds, may even be a reason to buy some NAS storage and hook it up at home. The demo I saw was simply amazing.
Great work apple. Now get those Core 2 Duo chips in the iMac and I'll be all set. :)
mlrproducts
Aug 11, 10:20 AM
Hurry up and take my money Apple! Here is my wishlist, the first section is PLAUSIBLE:
1) Released for GSM sim cards (probable, maybe support for CDMA later on)
2) Bluetooth (well, I think this is a given)
3) Good integration with iCal, Mail, etc
Now what I WANT that might not happen:
4) Not tied to a service provider
5) Affordable LOL
6) Wifi built in
7) Modem support for dialup over GSM
8) Lightweight, small FF
1) Released for GSM sim cards (probable, maybe support for CDMA later on)
2) Bluetooth (well, I think this is a given)
3) Good integration with iCal, Mail, etc
Now what I WANT that might not happen:
4) Not tied to a service provider
5) Affordable LOL
6) Wifi built in
7) Modem support for dialup over GSM
8) Lightweight, small FF
leekohler
Mar 3, 10:41 PM
Being gay is not a sin, homosexual actions are a sin.
If that's what you want to believe, fine. Respect my belief that it's perfectly fine, and stop making laws against me.
If that's what you want to believe, fine. Respect my belief that it's perfectly fine, and stop making laws against me.
kentkomine
Apr 11, 03:42 PM
Aww, I was really hoping/expecting for a summer release :( But with all the other rumors suggesting that WWDC 2011 will be software-oriented, it makes sense. The iPhone 5 better be AWESOME, or else!!
Dan==
Jul 27, 04:06 PM
But its like ATI simply naming one of their chips ATI Radeon with no additional naming (being something like X1800 etc.). Why not something like Mac Plus, Mac Extra, Mac Express... I could go on.
Those are all fine.
Well, the Mac Plus is pretty slow these days. What was that - 8Mhz?
Too bad the Mac Mini wasn't named the Mac Nano. Then we could have named this one the Mac Mini.
Those are all fine.
Well, the Mac Plus is pretty slow these days. What was that - 8Mhz?
Too bad the Mac Mini wasn't named the Mac Nano. Then we could have named this one the Mac Mini.
marksman
Mar 31, 09:09 PM
I neither agree or disagree with this statement, I'm just very curious as to whether or not it is true. Anyone have an data that can prove/disprove this?
I have just tried to find some information on this, and the only information I can find are two seperate quarters where a blackberry phone was number 1 for that particular quarter. The 3G was second in that quarter. In another instance, Blackberry was #1 for a quarter, and the 3GS was #2 and the 3G was #4.
There is a lack of data actually listing the top selling individual smartphones out there.
The interesting thing is I suspect the other top selling phones are all Blackberry devices. Maybe the Droid would be in there, but I suspect if you did a top 10 only one android device would be there.
I have just tried to find some information on this, and the only information I can find are two seperate quarters where a blackberry phone was number 1 for that particular quarter. The 3G was second in that quarter. In another instance, Blackberry was #1 for a quarter, and the 3GS was #2 and the 3G was #4.
There is a lack of data actually listing the top selling individual smartphones out there.
The interesting thing is I suspect the other top selling phones are all Blackberry devices. Maybe the Droid would be in there, but I suspect if you did a top 10 only one android device would be there.
deputy_doofy
Sep 19, 06:12 AM
1. It's Merom. Not Memrom, Menron, Memron or even L. Ron.
...
So, uh, Merman and Mermaid are out too, huh? ;)
...
So, uh, Merman and Mermaid are out too, huh? ;)
KnightWRX
Apr 20, 10:41 AM
Well let's just check we are 'on the same page then'..
Ok, lets.
You agree Samsung have copied Apple, but only on things that you think don't really matter, while on the other hand anything where they don't look the same is terribly important..
I agree that the pictures in the media do show some ressemblance, but since I know better, I waited for a full claims analysis. The complaint is broad and to not seperate it in parts and claim a "black or white" answer is quite disingenuous.
In the many claims, the trademark icons remain to be seen by a court how much ressemblance/confusion there is. There is no point in arguing this since all it is at the end of the day is hot air. This one is up to a judge. Are these trademarks even registered ? If they are, what are they registered as and is Samsung's design really infringing on this ?
Not matters we'll settle here anyway.
As for the trade dress, again as I have stated, Apple claims a wide array of devices, yet the media have only posted pictures of the I9000. Other models don't share the ressemblances claimed here and it is baffling why Apple would put down their claims on all models. I question the validity of this one as it applies as broadly as the media paints it. Do I question for the I9000 ? Depends on the angle. In person, the phones are quite hard to confuse.
Courts will tell again.
Okay, got it!
At least wait for me to validate your "on the same page" before you get it. That is what good faith discussion is about. ;)
Ok, lets.
You agree Samsung have copied Apple, but only on things that you think don't really matter, while on the other hand anything where they don't look the same is terribly important..
I agree that the pictures in the media do show some ressemblance, but since I know better, I waited for a full claims analysis. The complaint is broad and to not seperate it in parts and claim a "black or white" answer is quite disingenuous.
In the many claims, the trademark icons remain to be seen by a court how much ressemblance/confusion there is. There is no point in arguing this since all it is at the end of the day is hot air. This one is up to a judge. Are these trademarks even registered ? If they are, what are they registered as and is Samsung's design really infringing on this ?
Not matters we'll settle here anyway.
As for the trade dress, again as I have stated, Apple claims a wide array of devices, yet the media have only posted pictures of the I9000. Other models don't share the ressemblances claimed here and it is baffling why Apple would put down their claims on all models. I question the validity of this one as it applies as broadly as the media paints it. Do I question for the I9000 ? Depends on the angle. In person, the phones are quite hard to confuse.
Courts will tell again.
Okay, got it!
At least wait for me to validate your "on the same page" before you get it. That is what good faith discussion is about. ;)
Silentwave
Aug 26, 10:42 PM
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
But, I guess they COULD have put a pentium d in them...didnt they have dual cores?
yes, but they were significantly hotter, consumed much more power, and worst of all were incredibly inefficient per clock versus C2D. If memory serves, when the Conroe/Allendale (the codename for C2D desktop chips under 2.4GHz with 2MB L2) benchmarks first came out after the NDA lifted, the best Pentium Extreme Edition (3.73GHz Pentium D Presler core, dual core, 2x2MB L2, 1066 FSB, 130W TDP) was in many of the tests at least equaled by the Core 2 Duo E6300, a chip with the following specs:
Speed: 1.86 GHz Dual core
2MB L2 Cache
1066 MT/S FSB
TDP 65W
So a much slower, far cheaper C2D chip matches the best Pentium D Extreme Edition, though both are dual-core, have the same FSB speed, the Pentium D has a bigger L2 Cache, and each core is clocking at twice the speed of the Core 2 chip.
The C2D chips with the sole exception of the Core 2 Extreme X6800 version have a TDP of 65W- HALF that of the Pentium D series. Even the X6800 only has an 80W TDP.
To give you an idea of pricing, the *retail* version of the Core 2 Duo 1.86GHz chip at Newegg is listed at $193.
The retail version of the Pentium Extreme Edition dual core 3.73GHz chip at Newegg is listed at $1,015.
The rest of the Pentium D line has been dropped in price significantly since Core 2 Duo came out, its almost a fire sale. then again, they are much hotter, less efficient processors by far.
But, I guess they COULD have put a pentium d in them...didnt they have dual cores?
yes, but they were significantly hotter, consumed much more power, and worst of all were incredibly inefficient per clock versus C2D. If memory serves, when the Conroe/Allendale (the codename for C2D desktop chips under 2.4GHz with 2MB L2) benchmarks first came out after the NDA lifted, the best Pentium Extreme Edition (3.73GHz Pentium D Presler core, dual core, 2x2MB L2, 1066 FSB, 130W TDP) was in many of the tests at least equaled by the Core 2 Duo E6300, a chip with the following specs:
Speed: 1.86 GHz Dual core
2MB L2 Cache
1066 MT/S FSB
TDP 65W
So a much slower, far cheaper C2D chip matches the best Pentium D Extreme Edition, though both are dual-core, have the same FSB speed, the Pentium D has a bigger L2 Cache, and each core is clocking at twice the speed of the Core 2 chip.
The C2D chips with the sole exception of the Core 2 Extreme X6800 version have a TDP of 65W- HALF that of the Pentium D series. Even the X6800 only has an 80W TDP.
To give you an idea of pricing, the *retail* version of the Core 2 Duo 1.86GHz chip at Newegg is listed at $193.
The retail version of the Pentium Extreme Edition dual core 3.73GHz chip at Newegg is listed at $1,015.
The rest of the Pentium D line has been dropped in price significantly since Core 2 Duo came out, its almost a fire sale. then again, they are much hotter, less efficient processors by far.
manu chao
Jul 20, 06:14 PM
Definitely need 8 cores me.
One for running whatever program I'm working on.
One for running the OS X interface, with Core Image, and bells and whistles and brass knobs and shiny candy.
One for running Azerus or LimeWire or one of these Bittorrent clients that all seem to be in Java on the mac, and all slow my machine to a crawl..
One for running Firefox and rendering these java / flash adverts that seem to slow my machine to a crawl.
One for doing the video rendering that still slows my machine to a crawl for hours and hours.
One for running the Windows XP virtualisation machine in a window on my desktop that seemed to slow my machine to a crawl last time I tried it.
One for running whatever program I'm working on.
One for running the OS X interface, with Core Image, and bells and whistles and brass knobs and shiny candy.
One for running Azerus or LimeWire or one of these Bittorrent clients that all seem to be in Java on the mac, and all slow my machine to a crawl..
One for running Firefox and rendering these java / flash adverts that seem to slow my machine to a crawl.
One for doing the video rendering that still slows my machine to a crawl for hours and hours.
One for running the Windows XP virtualisation machine in a window on my desktop that seemed to slow my machine to a crawl last time I tried it.
No comments:
Post a Comment