tkingart
Mar 27, 03:54 AM
The only thing I don't like in Lion (based on screenshots I've seen) are the "flat gray scroll bars" adopted from iOS, this going back to 2d seems like back pedaling. I think something between flat and 3d would actually work, like get rid of the rounded center, flatten it but keep the edges soft and shaded, keeping the scroll bar wells the same. I suspect it's being flattened because of possible support for touch screens.
I understand the need for simplicity and streamlining, but where we lack tactile feedback, 3d helps with the illusion of depth, take that away and it will look like a devolving interface. Look at the OS X dock for instance, I was elated when it became three dimensional, now imagine if they made it flat again (permanently). I'm sure it may be a preferential thing, but I don't think I'm alone in preferring the 3d dock view.
We need to keep pushing forward with three dimensions in UI designs. It would be really cool to see some forward thinking UI changes like the ability to "push" running applications into the inside quad of a cylindrical shape that can be rotated with gestures.
The flat scroll bar belongs in Folder > Grid views and preview, looks alright there. :)
I understand the need for simplicity and streamlining, but where we lack tactile feedback, 3d helps with the illusion of depth, take that away and it will look like a devolving interface. Look at the OS X dock for instance, I was elated when it became three dimensional, now imagine if they made it flat again (permanently). I'm sure it may be a preferential thing, but I don't think I'm alone in preferring the 3d dock view.
We need to keep pushing forward with three dimensions in UI designs. It would be really cool to see some forward thinking UI changes like the ability to "push" running applications into the inside quad of a cylindrical shape that can be rotated with gestures.
The flat scroll bar belongs in Folder > Grid views and preview, looks alright there. :)
sunfast
Aug 17, 09:07 AM
If you buy a Xeon 5160 (3.0GHz) at the moment they are ?570. Apple are charging ?530 to upgrade from Xeon 5150 (2.66GHz) to the Xeon 5160. Bearing in mind that you can probably sell the original 2.66Gz chip for around ?300, it would be cheaper to buy the lower spec Mac Pro and upgrade yourself.
Forgive the ? for those that think in $.
Aren't there 2 chips though?
Forgive the ? for those that think in $.
Aren't there 2 chips though?
skunk
Mar 22, 07:22 AM
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition:How many of those in the first list have the capability of fielding an airforce? I'm just guessing here, but I imagine that Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Nicaragua and Uzbekistan would be less than useful contributors.
boncellis
Jul 20, 12:07 PM
Ah I see ... thought it was about WWDC 2006 my bad.
Yeah I don't think we will see 10.5 released at MWSF '07 (thinking CQ2 2007) but after I get back from WWDC I may have a different understanding of the current state of 10.5.
Can't wait to hear your take on it, shawnce. I have to admit that I enjoy your rejoinders whenever the trolls show up, so your take is particularly refreshing in my opinion.
Yeah I don't think we will see 10.5 released at MWSF '07 (thinking CQ2 2007) but after I get back from WWDC I may have a different understanding of the current state of 10.5.
Can't wait to hear your take on it, shawnce. I have to admit that I enjoy your rejoinders whenever the trolls show up, so your take is particularly refreshing in my opinion.
spicyapple
Sep 12, 11:05 AM
I was going to buy the quad-core Mac Pro 3.0 GHz when it hit the mid-price point, but I think I'll wait out for the dual quad-core (8 core) Mac Pro, instead. :) Hopefully by then, FB-DIMM will be cheap enough to buy 8 GB worth of RAM without breaking the bank.
littleman23408
Nov 17, 08:49 AM
Sure hope this game finally decides to come out on the 24th, i'm ready to play this sucker all day thanksgiving.
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.
portishead
Apr 12, 12:28 PM
Why are you endorsing lack of improvement?
Nooooo not at all. You missed my next post with my feature requests. I'm just giving people a hard time about complaining that FCP isn't good enough. It has bugs, and it's quirky, but it mostly works.
Nooooo not at all. You missed my next post with my feature requests. I'm just giving people a hard time about complaining that FCP isn't good enough. It has bugs, and it's quirky, but it mostly works.
M-Life
Apr 7, 11:12 PM
Doesn't really matter, Best Buy is going the way of Blockbuster and Borders anyway. They will be gone within a few years, once all their media turns digital.
mkruck
Apr 6, 03:10 PM
Ok ok ok... xoom, ipad, whatever...
you'd rather have a hamburger than a delicious, melty CHEESEBURGER?
Frigging hamburger fanbois... :p
You busted me.
I am a hamburger fanboi, and will turn into a raving lunatic, foam at the mouth and make up opinions based on nothing all to defend my beloved hamburgers. After all they're lighter, slimmer and tastier than cheesburgers!!!
Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk
you'd rather have a hamburger than a delicious, melty CHEESEBURGER?
Frigging hamburger fanbois... :p
You busted me.
I am a hamburger fanboi, and will turn into a raving lunatic, foam at the mouth and make up opinions based on nothing all to defend my beloved hamburgers. After all they're lighter, slimmer and tastier than cheesburgers!!!
Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk
ergle2
Sep 20, 03:51 PM
Umm. What happened in here?
Can we reurn to some common respect please? This spat isn't constructive.
True enough.
I ... well, I won't go there, too likely to throw more fuel on the fire.
I'll drop it if she does, fair enough?
Can we reurn to some common respect please? This spat isn't constructive.
True enough.
I ... well, I won't go there, too likely to throw more fuel on the fire.
I'll drop it if she does, fair enough?
amin
Aug 18, 10:28 PM
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac.
It may be obvious, but based on your earlier statement that a Conroe iMac would be "able to crunch through" apps faster than a Mac Pro, the obvious seemed worth identifying.
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.
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
*snip*
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?
*snip*
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
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.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
It may be obvious, but based on your earlier statement that a Conroe iMac would be "able to crunch through" apps faster than a Mac Pro, the obvious seemed worth identifying.
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.
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
*snip*
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?
*snip*
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
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.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
Tones2
Apr 11, 01:08 PM
grrrr stop posting this macrumors, i want the iphone 5 in june!
These MacRumors postings of availability guesses are ridiculous. Just like the projected iPad 2 delays. It'll never happen.
Apple has always released an iPhone update in the June / July timeframe. They've created significant expectation in that regard. The smartphone market is at a critical turning point right now with Android and Win 7 phones leading the innovation and capturing bigger shares of the market. There's no way that Apple can lay back and wait until October or November - the iPhone 4 is way out of touch with the current market and will lose ground. Stock prices will tumble with no June / July release.
I'm sure that MacRumors will post someone saying that it will be a June / July release and then back the other way and back and forth probably until release day, just like they did with the iPad 2. Heck, it's a business as well that feeds from this type of crazy speculation.
Tony
These MacRumors postings of availability guesses are ridiculous. Just like the projected iPad 2 delays. It'll never happen.
Apple has always released an iPhone update in the June / July timeframe. They've created significant expectation in that regard. The smartphone market is at a critical turning point right now with Android and Win 7 phones leading the innovation and capturing bigger shares of the market. There's no way that Apple can lay back and wait until October or November - the iPhone 4 is way out of touch with the current market and will lose ground. Stock prices will tumble with no June / July release.
I'm sure that MacRumors will post someone saying that it will be a June / July release and then back the other way and back and forth probably until release day, just like they did with the iPad 2. Heck, it's a business as well that feeds from this type of crazy speculation.
Tony
ThaDoggg
Apr 11, 12:14 PM
Personally I'm in no rush to upgrade as I still have some time on my contract. With that said, I would rather have Apple take their time and put out a quality product. Lately we've seen some issues with recent releases and it would be great if Apple could go back to making high quality products.
ikir
Apr 7, 03:05 AM
Better to have Core2Duo with 320M than an i5 with GMA HD 3000. At least for now until drivers get better and especially software houses support.
3D and gaming performance on new GMA is not so good but especially support is bad, many games don't work at all. Open CL too seems to don't work.
See the graph
http://mac.ikirsector.it/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=84
Lion should get full OpenGL 3.0 support even for GMA... i hope.
Naturally MBA is not a gaming or 3D production machine, but if you want to do some gaming, casual gaming, GMA can have serious limits.
3D and gaming performance on new GMA is not so good but especially support is bad, many games don't work at all. Open CL too seems to don't work.
See the graph
http://mac.ikirsector.it/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=84
Lion should get full OpenGL 3.0 support even for GMA... i hope.
Naturally MBA is not a gaming or 3D production machine, but if you want to do some gaming, casual gaming, GMA can have serious limits.
Multimedia
Aug 19, 08:51 PM
I also find it amusing when I see posters participating in Macpro discussions when they have publicly stated that they have no intention of buying a Macpro. WTF?? Don't they have a life outside of macrumors? If I owned a G5 Quad and had no intention of buying a Macpro, I'd be spending all of my spare time doing cool stuff with my machine... instead of wasting that time participating in discussions that have nothing to do with me. I might read though some of the threads now and then, just to keep up with technology - but to particpate and debate, what a waste. I guess some folks have no life.While it is true I have no life, it is not true I have fully decided to skip buying a Mac Pro. These discussions have lead me to a place of indecision about it rather than what I previously thought, which was to skip it. I never intended to talk anyone out of buying one if they want one. And I never intended to talk bad dirt against it. My apologies to anyone who thought I did. :(
My hearty congratulations to all who have taken the Mac Pro plunge already.
I am also waiting to see what the full scope of Core 2 offerings will be as I want a 17" Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro more first.
As far as the comment that Toast and Handbrake can use all four cores goes, Toast definitely does in the Mac Pro and if you add a significant action to the Quad G5, it will negatively impact the 2-3 core performance of Handbrake as well as Toast. That is what I meant. If it wasn't clear before now, I apologize for the imcomplete explanation of my meaning.
I feel misunderstood by some of you. No harm intended. Not anti-Mac Pro at all. Not trying to ratinoalize Quad G5 as somehow better - no way. Not trying to negatively impact Mac Pro sales. I'm totally Pro Mac Pro. Regret the misunderstanding. Wish I hadn't hurt some people's feelings. :o
My hearty congratulations to all who have taken the Mac Pro plunge already.
I am also waiting to see what the full scope of Core 2 offerings will be as I want a 17" Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro more first.
As far as the comment that Toast and Handbrake can use all four cores goes, Toast definitely does in the Mac Pro and if you add a significant action to the Quad G5, it will negatively impact the 2-3 core performance of Handbrake as well as Toast. That is what I meant. If it wasn't clear before now, I apologize for the imcomplete explanation of my meaning.
I feel misunderstood by some of you. No harm intended. Not anti-Mac Pro at all. Not trying to ratinoalize Quad G5 as somehow better - no way. Not trying to negatively impact Mac Pro sales. I'm totally Pro Mac Pro. Regret the misunderstanding. Wish I hadn't hurt some people's feelings. :o
bretm
Aug 17, 12:07 AM
Was there any doubt it wouldn't be a lot faster? I mean, I know it was already plenty fast, but come on...
But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
darkplanets
Mar 31, 06:01 PM
"We have no idea if it will even work on phones."
Um, so rather than find out, let's just not release it so we never know. That's an awesome decision. Way to take a chance there Google.
On the same note, I'm not sure if I can run the trail by my house in under 10 minutes, so I'm not even going to try.
I bet they tried, but it didn't work well. They're just feigning ignorance. As they themselves said, they cut corners. I read this as they didn't optimize the software-- it's probably very processor and RAM intensive. Just speculation though.
Um, so rather than find out, let's just not release it so we never know. That's an awesome decision. Way to take a chance there Google.
On the same note, I'm not sure if I can run the trail by my house in under 10 minutes, so I'm not even going to try.
I bet they tried, but it didn't work well. They're just feigning ignorance. As they themselves said, they cut corners. I read this as they didn't optimize the software-- it's probably very processor and RAM intensive. Just speculation though.
tripjammer
Apr 11, 01:05 PM
Not sure I believe the rumors, but as long as my 3G still works, I'll wait. $200 every 3 years is better than $200 every 2 years.
That is why you sell your iphone every year and it does not cost you to upgrade. ATT basically allows you to upgrade at the lowest price every year.
Its all about timing.
That is why you sell your iphone every year and it does not cost you to upgrade. ATT basically allows you to upgrade at the lowest price every year.
Its all about timing.
bobthedino
Apr 27, 08:23 AM
This is a lie
Keeping a database of our general location is logging our location. :mad: Does Apple really think this double talk, where they say they keep a database of location but don't log the location is going to fly?
At least our overlord will now, I hope, stop collecting location data when location services are turned off. It's a disgrace that it took a media storm to shame them into action.
But it's not "logging your location". If you look at the data that is being stored, there is one entry per location. If Apple was keeping a log of your movements over time, you'd expect there to be many entries for places you go to frequently, but there are not. consolidated.db is simply a cache used by the Core Location framework, nothing more.
This is not to say that Apple should have let the cache grow indefinitely - this is definitely bad. But they're going to fix it, and it'll be easy for us to verify, as we know how to check for the file now.
Keeping a database of our general location is logging our location. :mad: Does Apple really think this double talk, where they say they keep a database of location but don't log the location is going to fly?
At least our overlord will now, I hope, stop collecting location data when location services are turned off. It's a disgrace that it took a media storm to shame them into action.
But it's not "logging your location". If you look at the data that is being stored, there is one entry per location. If Apple was keeping a log of your movements over time, you'd expect there to be many entries for places you go to frequently, but there are not. consolidated.db is simply a cache used by the Core Location framework, nothing more.
This is not to say that Apple should have let the cache grow indefinitely - this is definitely bad. But they're going to fix it, and it'll be easy for us to verify, as we know how to check for the file now.
Infrared
Apr 11, 07:56 AM
LOL, if you think final cut is from the 90's then Avid Media Composer is from the 50's. It's horrible GUI. I wouldn't learn it, if they paid me big bucks. Well I take that back, I would, but I would hate it. Avid Looks like a POS, the graphics designers at Avid have always been behind though. Look at Protools.
No kidding!
280734
Where's Picasso when you need him? :-)
Avid image was from here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYw4vvr7Aq4
No kidding!
280734
Where's Picasso when you need him? :-)
Avid image was from here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYw4vvr7Aq4
61132
Aug 7, 08:22 PM
gosh, the finder looks the same :( I dont want the brushed metal anywhere anymore!! Also, they should just integrate address book/ical/mail into one app!!!
littleman23408
Dec 6, 03:00 PM
but at least you don't have to watch it
Its hard for me to watch, because I want to race, I don't want to watch the driver race for me, lol. I was very tempted to exit the race and go back to a-spec. I will definately have to not watch the next time I try one.
Its hard for me to watch, because I want to race, I don't want to watch the driver race for me, lol. I was very tempted to exit the race and go back to a-spec. I will definately have to not watch the next time I try one.
nilk
Apr 6, 03:07 PM
For a programmer dealing with Terminal, Xcode, Netbeans, Eclipse, etc (not graphic intensive softwares), would this macbook air be a better deal than the 13/15" Macbook pro?
Anyone?
The main thing keeping me from wanting a MBA for software development is the 4GB RAM limit. If you're not running any virtual machines you'd probably do just fine with 4GB, but as soon as you need to run a Windows VM things will get painful (especially if you're running Visual Studio in it).
If could get a MBA with 8GB of RAM and Thunderbolt I would get it instead of a MBP for my next machine, at least if the MBP stays the way it is (16GB of RAM option on a MBP would change things for me; I'll take all the RAM I can get).
Edit: One minor thing to note is that the 13" MBA has the 13" MBP beat on screen resolution. That's completely silly considering the MBP updates came well after the MBA updates.
Anyone?
The main thing keeping me from wanting a MBA for software development is the 4GB RAM limit. If you're not running any virtual machines you'd probably do just fine with 4GB, but as soon as you need to run a Windows VM things will get painful (especially if you're running Visual Studio in it).
If could get a MBA with 8GB of RAM and Thunderbolt I would get it instead of a MBP for my next machine, at least if the MBP stays the way it is (16GB of RAM option on a MBP would change things for me; I'll take all the RAM I can get).
Edit: One minor thing to note is that the 13" MBA has the 13" MBP beat on screen resolution. That's completely silly considering the MBP updates came well after the MBA updates.
