tortoise
Aug 7, 09:26 PM
Well I wouldn't say "Nothing" as obviously it required a lot of programmer time to move the OS to Intel, create the new XCode compiler, create & debug rosetta, re-write all of the iLife, and Pro-Apps offered by Apple, etc. etc.
This should be pretty trivial for the most part, mostly just a rebuild of the code base plus a rewrite of some tiny core bits that will be in assembly code (like locking primitives) and a few drivers. The normal applications should require approximately no porting effort at all.
I would point out that the Intel compiler for OSX is much better than the PPC compiler for the same. I found a couple extremely irritating compiler bugs under XCode PPC, while I have never even seen a bug in contemporaneous versions of GCC for Intel. This by itself is worth something. Current versions of GCC for x86 and AMD64 are on par with the best commercial compilers. GCC for PPC was a usable but inferior pile of dog poo that gave me many problems.
This should be pretty trivial for the most part, mostly just a rebuild of the code base plus a rewrite of some tiny core bits that will be in assembly code (like locking primitives) and a few drivers. The normal applications should require approximately no porting effort at all.
I would point out that the Intel compiler for OSX is much better than the PPC compiler for the same. I found a couple extremely irritating compiler bugs under XCode PPC, while I have never even seen a bug in contemporaneous versions of GCC for Intel. This by itself is worth something. Current versions of GCC for x86 and AMD64 are on par with the best commercial compilers. GCC for PPC was a usable but inferior pile of dog poo that gave me many problems.
Vegasman
Apr 27, 08:57 AM
Ah, I see. I wasn't checking the WSJ, only Macrumors.
Woah! That's a scrary thought. ;)
Woah! That's a scrary thought. ;)
kiwi-in-uk
Aug 7, 06:51 PM
... as of present the trash can will not allow you to selectively undelete a file?
What?
What?
Silentwave
Aug 17, 10:18 PM
I use CS2 for camera raw. Right now I am shooting with a fuji finepix S2 pro, but probably going to get the D200 soon. The Canon stuff is nice too, but I haven't tried the Canon raw converter. I love adobe camera raw - it just works for me. I have yet to try aperature but might try to get my hands on it. Camera Raw runs well on the Mac Pro, but like I said 10% faster on the Quad. It doesn't impact me much, and I get to boot windoze to cross test and develop items on a PC for web stuff :)
Just a suggestion, as a user of the D200 since it came out, I would like to suggest you use a raw converter other than CS2. Bibble and Nikon Capture 4.4/Nikon Capture NX do much better jobs at D200 raw files particularly in terms of color and high ISO noise. With ACR, there is heaps of noise that just isn't there with other converters. Plus the NR leaves terrible artifacts on D200 shots.
Just a suggestion, as a user of the D200 since it came out, I would like to suggest you use a raw converter other than CS2. Bibble and Nikon Capture 4.4/Nikon Capture NX do much better jobs at D200 raw files particularly in terms of color and high ISO noise. With ACR, there is heaps of noise that just isn't there with other converters. Plus the NR leaves terrible artifacts on D200 shots.
snebes
Apr 19, 04:33 PM
Why is it so hard for people to read English. Nowhere does it indicate those are numbers for the first quarter. In fact it is pretty clear it does not actually include the month of March..
Apples Q1 2011 ended around January this year. I don't have exact dates on hand, but their fiscal year starts in September.
Apples Q1 2011 ended around January this year. I don't have exact dates on hand, but their fiscal year starts in September.
Gurutech
Aug 7, 08:16 PM
Yes, absolutely:
Enhanced 64-bit Support
Leopard delivers 64-bit power in one, universal OS. Now Cocoa and Carbon application frameworks, as well as graphics, scripting, and the rest of the system are all 64-bit. Leopard delivers 64-bit power to both Intel- and PowerPC-based Macs, so you don�t have to install separate applications for different machines. There�s only one version of Mac OS X, so you don�t need to maintain separate operating systems for different uses.
Bridge the Generation Gap
Now that the entire operating system is 64-bit, you can take full advantage of the Xeon chip in Mac Pro and Xserve. You get more processing power at up to 3.0GHz, without limiting your programs to command-line applications, servers, and computation engines. From G3 to Xeon, from MacBook to Xserve, there is just one Leopard.
Wait. Does this mean that the Leopard doesn't support current MBP or MB? the ones that use 32 bit Yonah based Core Duo CPU.
Enhanced 64-bit Support
Leopard delivers 64-bit power in one, universal OS. Now Cocoa and Carbon application frameworks, as well as graphics, scripting, and the rest of the system are all 64-bit. Leopard delivers 64-bit power to both Intel- and PowerPC-based Macs, so you don�t have to install separate applications for different machines. There�s only one version of Mac OS X, so you don�t need to maintain separate operating systems for different uses.
Bridge the Generation Gap
Now that the entire operating system is 64-bit, you can take full advantage of the Xeon chip in Mac Pro and Xserve. You get more processing power at up to 3.0GHz, without limiting your programs to command-line applications, servers, and computation engines. From G3 to Xeon, from MacBook to Xserve, there is just one Leopard.
Wait. Does this mean that the Leopard doesn't support current MBP or MB? the ones that use 32 bit Yonah based Core Duo CPU.
zero2dash
Sep 13, 09:10 AM
Sheesh...just when I'm already high up enough on Apple for innovating, they throw even more leaps and bounds in there to put themselves even further ahead. I can't wait 'til my broke @$$ can finally get the money to buy a Mac and chuck all my Windows machines out the door.
I'm sure we'll see similar efforts from other PC manufacturers eventually, but let's see the software use those extra cores in Windows land. Ain't gonna happen...not on the level of what Apple's doing at least.
I'm sure we'll see similar efforts from other PC manufacturers eventually, but let's see the software use those extra cores in Windows land. Ain't gonna happen...not on the level of what Apple's doing at least.
bryanc
Aug 11, 10:52 AM
I'm stuck in a contract for another year, so I'll be watching to see how this pans out. Hopefully, I'll be able to jump on a Rev B without reservations.
Given Apple's patent on the click-wheel interface, what do you think the likelihood of a virtual rotary phone interface? There are plenty of people who are now adults who've never 'dialled' a phone. It would be really slick if Apple could find a way for all of us old-farts to re-activiate our kinaesthetic memories and dial up and old friend using the click wheel on our new iPhones.
Cheers
Given Apple's patent on the click-wheel interface, what do you think the likelihood of a virtual rotary phone interface? There are plenty of people who are now adults who've never 'dialled' a phone. It would be really slick if Apple could find a way for all of us old-farts to re-activiate our kinaesthetic memories and dial up and old friend using the click wheel on our new iPhones.
Cheers
Blackforge
Apr 6, 04:45 PM
Unfortunately the Xoom (or any Android device) doesn't support Windows Authentication in the default browser. Quite a few Enterprises use on internal websites, etc. Firefox for Android supports it, but last I heard, it wasn't compatible with the newer processors in the tablets.
Puts a damper in a lot of enterprise positioning they could have done.
iPad/iPhone supports it though..
Puts a damper in a lot of enterprise positioning they could have done.
iPad/iPhone supports it though..
ProwlingTiger
Mar 31, 08:44 PM
I like everyone bashing on the Apple "fanboys." It's comical. Somehow telling it like it is hangs a sign around your neck saying "i'm a fanboy, flame me."
People defending Google here by saying Google is still open are simply delusional. Now, if you defend Google by saying, "hey, Google was wrong these past few years, they're going in the right direction now," I'll give you credit.
But, somehow, Google changing its policies that were clearly not in the best interest of consumers gives people a reason to bash Apple customers.
Google is practically admitting what Apple "fanboys" have been saying all along.
"You can't handle the truth!"
SactoGuy18: Good idea. I've been wondering why Google never did this originally.
People defending Google here by saying Google is still open are simply delusional. Now, if you defend Google by saying, "hey, Google was wrong these past few years, they're going in the right direction now," I'll give you credit.
But, somehow, Google changing its policies that were clearly not in the best interest of consumers gives people a reason to bash Apple customers.
Google is practically admitting what Apple "fanboys" have been saying all along.
"You can't handle the truth!"
SactoGuy18: Good idea. I've been wondering why Google never did this originally.
mdavis
Mar 26, 08:23 PM
What? this seems hard to believe... Already done on development? :confused:
it's not a particularly large release
it's not a particularly large release
canucksfan88
Mar 26, 03:44 PM
does anyone else thing launchpad is the worst idea yet?
digitalbiker
Aug 27, 12:01 PM
Anyway, before you start babbling again, check the link below...these are FACTS, not whines.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2006502,00.asp
So please, before you spit out some fire, bring me some real facts, like percentage of failures and so on...the report I've read above shows Apple as having the LOWEST repair rate and HIGHEST trust of all makers. This, for me, is relevant; not random screams in Mac forums.
While I don't disagree with what you have said, I also think this PC Mag Poll may be a little misrepresentive of the current situation.
This is a readers poll from PC Mag users, I wonder how many are Mac users compared to PC users.
Second, they also state that Apple users are so fanatical and anti-pc that they are worried that they tend to exagerate the poll numbers in favor of Apple.
Third, the only less-subjective bit of information was the repair percentage numbers and the numbers they used were for last year (2005), so they would not reflect any problems with the new mac-intel machines. It seems like most of the issues currently being discussed are with the Mac-Intels.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2006502,00.asp
So please, before you spit out some fire, bring me some real facts, like percentage of failures and so on...the report I've read above shows Apple as having the LOWEST repair rate and HIGHEST trust of all makers. This, for me, is relevant; not random screams in Mac forums.
While I don't disagree with what you have said, I also think this PC Mag Poll may be a little misrepresentive of the current situation.
This is a readers poll from PC Mag users, I wonder how many are Mac users compared to PC users.
Second, they also state that Apple users are so fanatical and anti-pc that they are worried that they tend to exagerate the poll numbers in favor of Apple.
Third, the only less-subjective bit of information was the repair percentage numbers and the numbers they used were for last year (2005), so they would not reflect any problems with the new mac-intel machines. It seems like most of the issues currently being discussed are with the Mac-Intels.
gnasher729
Jul 14, 05:20 PM
A 2.66 Ghz Woodcrest will probably be faster than a 2.93Ghz Conroe. A 1.83Ghz Yonah is faster than a 3.2Ghz Pentium, right?;)
Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest all use Intel's new "Core Microarchitecture" (a bit confusing: Core Duo does _not_ use "Core Microarchitecture", it is basically an improved Pentium III. The Core 2 Duo chips use Core Microarchitecture).
All three chips produce the same performance at the same clockspeed. Cache size may make a difference, but the Conroe models starting at 2.4 GHz all have the large 4 MB cache. So a single 2.66 GHz Woodcrest will be substantially slower than a 2.93 GHz Conroe. Not that it matters; the 2.93 GHz Conroe is extremely overpriced and unlikely to be used in any Macintosh.
I personally would expect 2.0GHz Conroe, 2.66 GHz Conroe, 2 x 2 GHz Woodcrest and 2 x 2.66 GHz Woodcrest for a wide range from cheap to maximum performance.
Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest all use Intel's new "Core Microarchitecture" (a bit confusing: Core Duo does _not_ use "Core Microarchitecture", it is basically an improved Pentium III. The Core 2 Duo chips use Core Microarchitecture).
All three chips produce the same performance at the same clockspeed. Cache size may make a difference, but the Conroe models starting at 2.4 GHz all have the large 4 MB cache. So a single 2.66 GHz Woodcrest will be substantially slower than a 2.93 GHz Conroe. Not that it matters; the 2.93 GHz Conroe is extremely overpriced and unlikely to be used in any Macintosh.
I personally would expect 2.0GHz Conroe, 2.66 GHz Conroe, 2 x 2 GHz Woodcrest and 2 x 2.66 GHz Woodcrest for a wide range from cheap to maximum performance.
Multimedia
Jul 20, 04:50 PM
So We May Be Seeing A Very Short Life For What Steve Introduces August 7. If true, this looks like Steve may be able to claim an all Quad Core plus Oct Core on top Mac Pro line PLUS Quad Core iMacs at his annual SF MacWorld SteveNote January 9,2007 perhaps with Leopard on board as well. Wouldn't that be a Merry belated Christmas and a Happiest of New Years? :eek: :D :p :cool: ;) :)
Bye Bye Baby
Jul 21, 03:33 AM
With all these new technologies with 4, 8 and eventually 24-core capacities (some time in the not too distant future) all running at 64-bit, we musn't forget that software also has tobe developed for these machienes in order to get the most out of the hardware. At the moment we aren't even maximising core-duo, let alone a quad core and all the rest!!!!
Besides, for 90% of what non-pro users do, these advances will help very little. Internet will still run at the same spead and my ipod will still chug along with USB2 etc.
Pros with pro apps acn rejoice, only if software keeps the pace!!!
Let's hope so!!!
Besides, for 90% of what non-pro users do, these advances will help very little. Internet will still run at the same spead and my ipod will still chug along with USB2 etc.
Pros with pro apps acn rejoice, only if software keeps the pace!!!
Let's hope so!!!
apolloa
Mar 22, 02:20 PM
I think the Playbook is better then the iPad because it's smaller. The interface is more interesting too IMO. Apple really need to get a 7" screen device out there.
mc68k
Dec 9, 01:06 AM
well turns out you win the delorean s2 in part of the game. so much for that epic purchase :(
one cool thing about this game is since im in front of screen a lot ive been listening to some good new music while playing. been getting back in the old zone. a lot of the old tracks are coming back to me. i can hit a lot of the corners from memory
the required oil change for all used cars sucks. i put in the code for my free car from pre order. got the nascar and the mclaren stealth. that car is even better than my fully tricked out F40! i tried it on a practice track and it felt much smoother.i almost feel liek its cheating with the SS racing tires. oh well it's still fun and if you miss a corner badly it's still your fault and you lose, so theres till some challenge there.
edit: looks like i cant sell the delorean. anyone want to trade?
one cool thing about this game is since im in front of screen a lot ive been listening to some good new music while playing. been getting back in the old zone. a lot of the old tracks are coming back to me. i can hit a lot of the corners from memory
the required oil change for all used cars sucks. i put in the code for my free car from pre order. got the nascar and the mclaren stealth. that car is even better than my fully tricked out F40! i tried it on a practice track and it felt much smoother.i almost feel liek its cheating with the SS racing tires. oh well it's still fun and if you miss a corner badly it's still your fault and you lose, so theres till some challenge there.
edit: looks like i cant sell the delorean. anyone want to trade?
gnasher729
Apr 27, 08:35 AM
A "bug" right? ;)
I thought they said that there was not any concerns?
There was never anything to worry about. However, paranoia strikes, everyone goes mad without any reason, so what is Apple supposed to do? Note that the same paranoia has been striking against Windows phones as well now (look at theregister.com), with dozens and dozens of clueless idiots complaining that Windows is even worse than Apple, or equally bad as Apple, or almost as bad as Apple, based on the fact that Windows is using the same crowd sourcing that Apple (and Google) uses, and a general misunderstanding of what is actually happening.
The only actual _real_ privacy problem that I have seen so far is that Google's database (they have a database of WiFi locations, just as Apple, Windows, Skyhook, and I think Nokia) is not secured enough and lets anyone get access to lookup the location of any WiFi base station (my home network is located within about 100 meters or about 20 homes; the centre of the circle is quite exactly where I live). Which means if for some reason you want to go into hiding, you better don't take your WiFi router with you. (People got all paranoid about the iPhone, but anyone trying to find you first has to find your iPhone, and usually that means they've found you as well, whether there is any data on the phone or not). This problem with Google's database affects _anyone_ with a WiFi router in the whole world, whether they have any phone or not.
How much is it costing me to send the data to apple so they can crowdsource locations for everyone? I doubt AT&T isn't counting this towards data use.
Apple sends this preferably over WiFi, in which case it costs you almost nothing. But you have benefits: Your GPS works immediately when turned on instead of taking up to several minutes (like the bloody TomTom in my car does, which is pretty annoying at times), and you can find yourself quite precisely on a map in the middle of London where GPS just doesn't work because of all the tall buildings; New Yorkers probably appreciate it just as much.
I thought they said that there was not any concerns?
There was never anything to worry about. However, paranoia strikes, everyone goes mad without any reason, so what is Apple supposed to do? Note that the same paranoia has been striking against Windows phones as well now (look at theregister.com), with dozens and dozens of clueless idiots complaining that Windows is even worse than Apple, or equally bad as Apple, or almost as bad as Apple, based on the fact that Windows is using the same crowd sourcing that Apple (and Google) uses, and a general misunderstanding of what is actually happening.
The only actual _real_ privacy problem that I have seen so far is that Google's database (they have a database of WiFi locations, just as Apple, Windows, Skyhook, and I think Nokia) is not secured enough and lets anyone get access to lookup the location of any WiFi base station (my home network is located within about 100 meters or about 20 homes; the centre of the circle is quite exactly where I live). Which means if for some reason you want to go into hiding, you better don't take your WiFi router with you. (People got all paranoid about the iPhone, but anyone trying to find you first has to find your iPhone, and usually that means they've found you as well, whether there is any data on the phone or not). This problem with Google's database affects _anyone_ with a WiFi router in the whole world, whether they have any phone or not.
How much is it costing me to send the data to apple so they can crowdsource locations for everyone? I doubt AT&T isn't counting this towards data use.
Apple sends this preferably over WiFi, in which case it costs you almost nothing. But you have benefits: Your GPS works immediately when turned on instead of taking up to several minutes (like the bloody TomTom in my car does, which is pretty annoying at times), and you can find yourself quite precisely on a map in the middle of London where GPS just doesn't work because of all the tall buildings; New Yorkers probably appreciate it just as much.
sjo
Aug 11, 03:34 PM
Well only about 1.25bil out of the +6 actually have cell service and I'd suspect only about 300mil in Eurpoe use cell phones (according to internetworldstats.com estimates 291mil in Europe use the internet... I'd assume cell usage is similiar).
And factor in that the US, Canada and many of the other countries with CDMA service are amongst the most wealthy in the world. Those +150mil customers are nothing to sneeze at.
Well now you ignorant yankie ;) Firstly the mobile phone penetration in Europe is about 99% or maybe slighly more. You should really travel a bit to get some perspective.
And secondly, GSM has user base of over 1 billion while CDMA as you said has some 60m users. Which one you think would be more interesting market to cover for a new mobile phone manufacturer? And there is really no question of "we'll see which one wins" because GSM won a long long time ago, hands down.
And factor in that the US, Canada and many of the other countries with CDMA service are amongst the most wealthy in the world. Those +150mil customers are nothing to sneeze at.
Well now you ignorant yankie ;) Firstly the mobile phone penetration in Europe is about 99% or maybe slighly more. You should really travel a bit to get some perspective.
And secondly, GSM has user base of over 1 billion while CDMA as you said has some 60m users. Which one you think would be more interesting market to cover for a new mobile phone manufacturer? And there is really no question of "we'll see which one wins" because GSM won a long long time ago, hands down.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 25, 02:17 PM
That's why the information is stored locally and can't be accessed by third parties. The information IS private. Unless a device of yours is stolen, in which case almost anything can be done or accessed.
Is it really? Is it open for people to look at how it is accessed? I don't think so. If that were the case, it would have been revealed earlier and more easily.
Apple needs to do the right thing and be transparent in this process.
Is it really? Is it open for people to look at how it is accessed? I don't think so. If that were the case, it would have been revealed earlier and more easily.
Apple needs to do the right thing and be transparent in this process.
KnightWRX
Apr 7, 09:36 AM
You make it seem like intel told apple they can't use the sb chips unless they use the IGP, which is obviously false.
It's not false per say, at least not 100%. Of course, graphics in such systems are usually IGPs, but before the Core iX line of processors, anyone could license and build chipsets for these processors and include a different IGP than Intel did. Intel however refused to license this for the new processors, including the SB line and thus nVidia who was making chipsets could not produce an IGP for the new platform.
So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.
So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
It's not false per say, at least not 100%. Of course, graphics in such systems are usually IGPs, but before the Core iX line of processors, anyone could license and build chipsets for these processors and include a different IGP than Intel did. Intel however refused to license this for the new processors, including the SB line and thus nVidia who was making chipsets could not produce an IGP for the new platform.
So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.
So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
NightFox
Apr 19, 01:28 PM
I'm surprised to see iPhones have outsold iPod Touches by so much; I've never really considered the figures but just assumed that there would be way more iPod Touches around than iPhones.
Multimedia
Sep 13, 01:21 PM
A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.No software such as, Cinema 4D, Motion, Aperture, Final Cut Pro etcNo software such as Toast 7.1, Handbrake UB. More to the point is not how many cores an application can use but rather how many things you can get done at once. :rolleyes:From my usage of FCP, Compressor, Aperture and DVDSP, they work very well with the MacPro but I haven't seen them approach usage of even 3 full cores.
Ability to multistask is great but I would not say that any one of the above is using all cores the way we want them to. I would contend that this is coming and pointed out in another thread that some of the FCP benchmarks on Apple's MacPro performance page are footnoted that the figures given were using Beta version of FCP.I think in the next few months the full FCS and Logic will get an update to address this.
Ability to multistask is great but I would not say that any one of the above is using all cores the way we want them to. I would contend that this is coming and pointed out in another thread that some of the FCP benchmarks on Apple's MacPro performance page are footnoted that the figures given were using Beta version of FCP.I think in the next few months the full FCS and Logic will get an update to address this.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий