Chundles
Jul 20, 08:31 PM
And I remember that they were very concerned about the lack of ECC memory, and were extremely eager to replace them with Xserves as soon as the G5 model came out.
Yeah, the original PowerMac G5 cluster thingy was really just a proof of concept that a high-powered supercomputer could be made from Macs and using the Mac OS. It never ran anything mission critical because of the lack of ECC RAM which could cause all sorts of trouble with calculations if there was even one bit flip.
Once the XServe came out with ECC support they swapped out the PowerMacs (I think MacMall had a big sale of the PMs from the Virginia system) and replaced them with 2.3GHz XServes made specially for them by Apple - at the time I think the XServes were only 2GHz so Apple made a bunch of 2.3GHz systems for Virginia to counteract the effect of the time they lost replacing the PowerMacs.
Yeah, the original PowerMac G5 cluster thingy was really just a proof of concept that a high-powered supercomputer could be made from Macs and using the Mac OS. It never ran anything mission critical because of the lack of ECC RAM which could cause all sorts of trouble with calculations if there was even one bit flip.
Once the XServe came out with ECC support they swapped out the PowerMacs (I think MacMall had a big sale of the PMs from the Virginia system) and replaced them with 2.3GHz XServes made specially for them by Apple - at the time I think the XServes were only 2GHz so Apple made a bunch of 2.3GHz systems for Virginia to counteract the effect of the time they lost replacing the PowerMacs.
Cougarcat
Mar 26, 07:44 PM
It's crap that is no longer needed.
It's needed for me.
Look, Rosetta isn't a part of OS X by default. If it is installed, then it is needed by the user, and thus isn't "crap." If the user doesn't need it, it won't be installed. For most users, it will be "cut out." I don't see why having the option there for people who need it stifles progress.
It's needed for me.
Look, Rosetta isn't a part of OS X by default. If it is installed, then it is needed by the user, and thus isn't "crap." If the user doesn't need it, it won't be installed. For most users, it will be "cut out." I don't see why having the option there for people who need it stifles progress.
Unspeaked
Sep 19, 11:24 AM
I ordered my 15" MBP yesterday and they are telling me it will ship next Tuesday. I sure hope that when the package arrives the MBP will have no stinking Merom, no more than 512 MB RAM, no better than an 80 Gb/5400 rpm HDD, and -- please God -- no magnetic latch! Oh - and one more thing: Apple better not send me a refund if they lower the price before the package hits my doorstep. :mad:
I don't think you've got anything to worry about there...
I don't think you've got anything to worry about there...
_Matt
Mar 21, 12:27 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I voted for Obama. I respect Obama. I will likely vote again for him against lesser candidates. He will likely win reelection.
But I can't say I'm proud of what he's doing and not doing. And I'm not sure how others can be either.
I voted for Obama. I respect Obama. I will likely vote again for him against lesser candidates. He will likely win reelection.
But I can't say I'm proud of what he's doing and not doing. And I'm not sure how others can be either.
thatisme
Apr 27, 08:36 AM
Maybe this will stop the large daily 1am data chunks being sent on 3G??? My most active time on 3G data always happens when I am asleep....:eek:
ferguldy
Jul 27, 09:49 AM
So are we really going to get ALL of these new toys come WWDC? Leopard preview, Merom laptops, Core2/Woodcrest Mac Pros, Core2 Imacs (oh, and maybe a movie download add to iTunes) That sounds like an awful lot of stuff to cover in such a short period of time. What do people think about timelines for introduction here?
Multimedia
Aug 23, 10:38 AM
My Quad G5 is silent as well, unlike Dual 2.7's which rev frequently.
I was concerned that the fans at the rear ports never spin, even during the Apple Hardware Test, but I've noticed that in other Quads as well. CPU temps are 50 to 60 degrees celcius.
Multimedia, would you confirm both with your Quad G5, please?How do I do that? I never hear any fans from it. Analysis temperature Software links?
I was concerned that the fans at the rear ports never spin, even during the Apple Hardware Test, but I've noticed that in other Quads as well. CPU temps are 50 to 60 degrees celcius.
Multimedia, would you confirm both with your Quad G5, please?How do I do that? I never hear any fans from it. Analysis temperature Software links?
BlizzardBomb
Aug 26, 04:34 PM
You're screwing up, intel. We don't want 300 trillion transistors on a 1 nm die. We want longer battery life. Idiots.
Are you being serious? Think about how much energy the LCD, the speakers, the HD, the RAM and the graphics card use. You can't just change the processor and go "Poof!" 15 hour battery!
Are you being serious? Think about how much energy the LCD, the speakers, the HD, the RAM and the graphics card use. You can't just change the processor and go "Poof!" 15 hour battery!
macduke
Mar 25, 10:44 PM
This seems a little fast for the first GM. Maybe not such a big update after all? Where are all the secrets? The UI could use more of an overhaul IMO. This is probably just for the devs and they will bust out some fancy fancy at WWDC. I hope! Gotta have that one more thing...
I hope Lion lives up to the name and is BEAST.
I hope Lion lives up to the name and is BEAST.
mediasorcerer
Mar 31, 10:41 PM
Whether they're right to start regulating or not, they're still shamless hypocrites. What happened to all the principles that they waved around in the air? Andy Rubin himself said that the "definition of open" was that anyone could download the Android source and do whatever they wanted to it. Now people have to kiss his ring?
Google are the ones who waved the bloody shirt and shrieked about how Android-vs-the-iPhone was about freedom. Just because they're forced to backtrack now doesn't mean it's not blatant hypocrisy.
it is hypocrisy,and its to be expected from google too,lets face it,they are the data miners right hand man,they went around stealing peoples wifi details recently,and were caught,what sort of a company does that i ask you?thieving personal info!!!!
ive never heard of apple doing that.
Google are the ones who waved the bloody shirt and shrieked about how Android-vs-the-iPhone was about freedom. Just because they're forced to backtrack now doesn't mean it's not blatant hypocrisy.
it is hypocrisy,and its to be expected from google too,lets face it,they are the data miners right hand man,they went around stealing peoples wifi details recently,and were caught,what sort of a company does that i ask you?thieving personal info!!!!
ive never heard of apple doing that.
addicted44
Mar 26, 01:15 AM
About the only thing that I find disappointing about this release is the lack of a new filesystem.
I am disappointed about this too. But I am not surprised. Apple's next filesystem was going to be ZFS. But Sun being purchased by Oracle has probably killed any chance of that happening.
The newer Linux FS'es are just not stable enough at the point (or don't do things Apple has somehow managed to bake into HFS+, like the snapshots, and things like directory Hard Links, etc). I don't see Apple moving to any version of ReiserFS or ext#, so I think we are stuck with HFS+ and extensions/improvements of it, until the ZFS situation gets clearer.
I am disappointed about this too. But I am not surprised. Apple's next filesystem was going to be ZFS. But Sun being purchased by Oracle has probably killed any chance of that happening.
The newer Linux FS'es are just not stable enough at the point (or don't do things Apple has somehow managed to bake into HFS+, like the snapshots, and things like directory Hard Links, etc). I don't see Apple moving to any version of ReiserFS or ext#, so I think we are stuck with HFS+ and extensions/improvements of it, until the ZFS situation gets clearer.
~Shard~
Aug 25, 04:29 PM
the vocal minority are always the ones who have problems :rolleyes:
So in other words, the squeaky wheel gets the grease? ;)
So in other words, the squeaky wheel gets the grease? ;)
AidenShaw
Mar 26, 11:23 PM
As an amateur OS X developer, I really hate this attitude because it will end up slowing Lion adoption. That really sucks, because there are a ton of awesome changes in 10.6 that I (and many, many other developers) would love to take advantage of to make their software even greater, but it's not going to be viable to go Lion-only for said features until Lion is installed on the majority of Macs out there.
Yes, we've heard of this - it's the "XP syndrome" all over again.
Yes, we've heard of this - it's the "XP syndrome" all over again.
epitaphic
Aug 18, 09:06 PM
Do you think a Conroe iMac will beat a Mac Pro due to lower memory latency alone? Do you have real experience or data regarding how horrendous a problem this is? Extra dual-core processor aside, the Mac Pro has a higher speed FSB, higher memory bus bandwidth, higher RAM capacity, and ability to set up internal RAID amongst other advantages over a Conroe iMac.
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac. But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
the Mac Pro (...) actually takes longer to access main memory than the Core Duo processor in the MacBook Pro. This is much worse than it sounds once you take into account the fact that the MacBook Pro features a 667MHz FSB compared to the 1333MHz FSB (per chip) used in the Mac Pro.
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
It's not Apple's fault, but FB-DIMMs absolutely kill memory latency; even running in quad channel mode, the FB-DIMM equipped Mac Pro takes 45% more time to access memory than our DDR2 equipped test bed at the same memory frequency.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac. But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
the Mac Pro (...) actually takes longer to access main memory than the Core Duo processor in the MacBook Pro. This is much worse than it sounds once you take into account the fact that the MacBook Pro features a 667MHz FSB compared to the 1333MHz FSB (per chip) used in the Mac Pro.
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
It's not Apple's fault, but FB-DIMMs absolutely kill memory latency; even running in quad channel mode, the FB-DIMM equipped Mac Pro takes 45% more time to access memory than our DDR2 equipped test bed at the same memory frequency.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
kdarling
Apr 19, 02:43 PM
That sort of misstates the test for likelihood of confusion. A consumer might, for example, believe that Apple licenses or otherwise blesses the Samsung products. That's probably good enough.
Thank you for the correction!
Please stop spreading FUD. If you knew anything about the history of the iPhone, you would know that it was announced and previewed at MacWorld 2007.
"FUD" is a big strong, don't you think? But you are correct; the F700 was shown off a couple of weeks later.
As I've said many times, 2006 was the time that everyone of us in the business (not casual consumers) knew that touchscreen phones were coming. Many companies were working on them; some quicker than others. They had no need to copy from each other; there's only a few major ways to do an all-touch phone without getting weird.
That's why Jobs felt he had to show off the iPhone before the other trade shows came along, long before it was ready for sale. He did not want to be seen as second in line. (It had nothing to do with the FCC... that's a story for the naive.)
Thank you for the correction!
Please stop spreading FUD. If you knew anything about the history of the iPhone, you would know that it was announced and previewed at MacWorld 2007.
"FUD" is a big strong, don't you think? But you are correct; the F700 was shown off a couple of weeks later.
As I've said many times, 2006 was the time that everyone of us in the business (not casual consumers) knew that touchscreen phones were coming. Many companies were working on them; some quicker than others. They had no need to copy from each other; there's only a few major ways to do an all-touch phone without getting weird.
That's why Jobs felt he had to show off the iPhone before the other trade shows came along, long before it was ready for sale. He did not want to be seen as second in line. (It had nothing to do with the FCC... that's a story for the naive.)
*LTD*
Mar 26, 07:13 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
How does Rosetta hold back forward progress exactly? It's just small extension for the OS. It's not like it's Classic.
It's crap that is no longer needed.
Stuff that can be cut out but isn't, holds back progress. Progress = cutting and more cutting and then perfecting what's left over.
Rosetta isn't necessary to run today's apps (or even apps released over the past 2-3 years.) So it needs to go.
How does Rosetta hold back forward progress exactly? It's just small extension for the OS. It's not like it's Classic.
It's crap that is no longer needed.
Stuff that can be cut out but isn't, holds back progress. Progress = cutting and more cutting and then perfecting what's left over.
Rosetta isn't necessary to run today's apps (or even apps released over the past 2-3 years.) So it needs to go.
gnasher729
Aug 26, 04:08 PM
I dont see much change really, the 1.66GHz merom chip will find its way into the mini (they'll scrap the solo model).
The 1.83 & 2.00GHz for iMacs (if they use merom) and MacBooks and the 2.16 and 2.33 for the 15 & 17 MBPs respectively. Its that simple.
Only problem with that is that a 2.33 GHz Merom chip will be fifty percent more expensive than a 2.16 GHz Yonah is today. So do you think Apple will increase prices of the MacBook Pro by $150 to $200 or reduce their profit?
The 1.83 & 2.00GHz for iMacs (if they use merom) and MacBooks and the 2.16 and 2.33 for the 15 & 17 MBPs respectively. Its that simple.
Only problem with that is that a 2.33 GHz Merom chip will be fifty percent more expensive than a 2.16 GHz Yonah is today. So do you think Apple will increase prices of the MacBook Pro by $150 to $200 or reduce their profit?
rtdunham
Aug 27, 10:07 AM
As far as "legalities" go, usually corporations do have to generally not take unsolicited ideas, commercials, marketing materials, etc. developed by the public. The reason for this is that they want to avoid being sued later on if they do something similar. ...the more obvious examples would be things where, for example, someone designs a new computer and sends it to Apple; Apple eventually releases something quite similar to it, and the person who sent in the design tries to sue them for taking their idea and not paying anything for it.-Zadillo
but wouldn't it be neat to see a computer maker have a website for submission of ideas: you type in your idea, and get a message that says, "IF we choose to use your idea, you'll receive $1 per unit; if you agree to those terms, hit the "SEND" button now."
Imagine all the 'puter features, (cheap lyric theft intended) that might be in today's units, if they incorporated ideas suggested on these forums alone in the past 5 yrs. It'd be fun to see someone compile a list. Here's a start: Ports on the FRONT of desktop units; easy-swap HD bays on laptops; built-in memory card readers; built-in iPod dock; etc.
Look at the stuff on YOUR desk: how much could be consolidated into the computer itself? Think about what you wish your computer could do that it can't do, now.
but wouldn't it be neat to see a computer maker have a website for submission of ideas: you type in your idea, and get a message that says, "IF we choose to use your idea, you'll receive $1 per unit; if you agree to those terms, hit the "SEND" button now."
Imagine all the 'puter features, (cheap lyric theft intended) that might be in today's units, if they incorporated ideas suggested on these forums alone in the past 5 yrs. It'd be fun to see someone compile a list. Here's a start: Ports on the FRONT of desktop units; easy-swap HD bays on laptops; built-in memory card readers; built-in iPod dock; etc.
Look at the stuff on YOUR desk: how much could be consolidated into the computer itself? Think about what you wish your computer could do that it can't do, now.
thisisahughes
Apr 8, 02:00 AM
I'm not sure how I feel about this.
relimw
Sep 13, 01:00 PM
A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.
Hehe, everybody else cited you, I suppose I will as well.
It's not that those cores won't be used. The average Joe user won't need them, it won't help you type letters any faster, and it'll do very little to help you websurf any faster (unless people keep putting bloat-ware browsers out there).
What it will help with, is people using HPC apps (BLAST comes to mind), or multi-threaded apps.
Hehe, everybody else cited you, I suppose I will as well.
It's not that those cores won't be used. The average Joe user won't need them, it won't help you type letters any faster, and it'll do very little to help you websurf any faster (unless people keep putting bloat-ware browsers out there).
What it will help with, is people using HPC apps (BLAST comes to mind), or multi-threaded apps.
deannnnn
Jun 8, 09:26 PM
I would rather just order it online if I didn't want to drive to an Apple Store.
Seriously, RadioShack needs to die.
I used to go to RadioShack every time I needed some kind of cable or needed to convert some kind of cable into another kind of cable. Then I learned that they're prices are insanely high and I've been being ripped off. Now I buy from cmple.com.
Seriously, RadioShack needs to die.
I used to go to RadioShack every time I needed some kind of cable or needed to convert some kind of cable into another kind of cable. Then I learned that they're prices are insanely high and I've been being ripped off. Now I buy from cmple.com.
notabadname
Mar 22, 01:15 PM
This is just a preview of the future, Android based tablets will clean the iPads clock. Apple made the so-called iPad 2 as a 1.5. Low res camera, not enough RAM, and low res screen. It's going to be a verrrry long 2012 for Apple. Sure it's selling like hot cakes now, but when buyers see tablets that they don't have to stand inline for, that have better equipment and are cheaper ... Apples house of cards will come crashing down around them.
The only strength that Apple has is the app ecosystem; which is why they are going after Amazon for spiting on the sidewalk. They know the world of hurt coming their way.
You are the funniest poster on here. Thanks for the entertainment. (Not sure if it's your intent, but thanks anyway.)
The only strength that Apple has is the app ecosystem; which is why they are going after Amazon for spiting on the sidewalk. They know the world of hurt coming their way.
You are the funniest poster on here. Thanks for the entertainment. (Not sure if it's your intent, but thanks anyway.)
TheKrillr
Aug 27, 08:19 PM
Not true.
Recent years, updates came right before the end of the promotion.
I didn't know that, thats very good to know. I'm in need of a macbook by the 25th and was afraid i'd have to end up ordering right before the release of Merom.
Recent years, updates came right before the end of the promotion.
I didn't know that, thats very good to know. I'm in need of a macbook by the 25th and was afraid i'd have to end up ordering right before the release of Merom.
dgree03
Mar 31, 02:39 PM
I've been wanting to say this for a very long time. Google's OS has no advantage over iOS. You could even say it has a disadvantage. Having to create a vanilla code base that needs to function on multiple pieces of hardware is complex, more complexity creates weaker system.
But here's my point. The ONLY ONLY reason why Android market share is anywhere near what it is today is because of the Buy One Get One options at most phone retailers. iOS has NEVER done that and hopefully never will. If you didn't care about the phone or service but needed two "Newer Smart Phones" one for you and one for your wife, why not go with the "Blah Blah" model from Verizon where if I buy one today I get the second for free (two year agreement and activation fees required).
Market share means nothing. This platform is doomed unless Google reins it in and get control over it. If they do, providers will be less willing to work with them, if they don't, by by Android.
My Two Cents.
-LanPhantom
Iphone are sold BOGO and even just free on contract over in other countries.
Android has quite a few advantages over iOS. And as it stands right now, android is still as "open" as it was 1 minutes before this article got posted
Nice try.
But here's my point. The ONLY ONLY reason why Android market share is anywhere near what it is today is because of the Buy One Get One options at most phone retailers. iOS has NEVER done that and hopefully never will. If you didn't care about the phone or service but needed two "Newer Smart Phones" one for you and one for your wife, why not go with the "Blah Blah" model from Verizon where if I buy one today I get the second for free (two year agreement and activation fees required).
Market share means nothing. This platform is doomed unless Google reins it in and get control over it. If they do, providers will be less willing to work with them, if they don't, by by Android.
My Two Cents.
-LanPhantom
Iphone are sold BOGO and even just free on contract over in other countries.
Android has quite a few advantages over iOS. And as it stands right now, android is still as "open" as it was 1 minutes before this article got posted
Nice try.
No comments:
Post a Comment