hayesk
Mar 26, 02:28 PM
So is there real resolution independence or just a x2 mode?
Resolution independence requires lots of work from third party app developers. I wish Apple pushed them along earlier, but I don't think they have, so we're going to have to wait.
Resolution independence requires lots of work from third party app developers. I wish Apple pushed them along earlier, but I don't think they have, so we're going to have to wait.
Michaelgtrusa
Apr 8, 01:59 AM
It depends on the store your at, some BestBuy's have poor management, some don't.
epitaphic
Sep 13, 10:53 AM
What about Tigerton (2007)? Isn't that a "true" quad?
Intel has two lines of Xeon processors:
* The 5000 series is DP (dual processor, like Woodcrest, Clovertown)
* The 7000 series MP (multi processor - eg 4+ processors)
Tigerton is supposed to be an MP version of Clovertown. Meaning, you can have as many chips as the motherboard supports, and just like Clovertown its an MCM (two processors in one package). 7000's are also about 5-10x the price of 5000's.
So unless the specs for Tigerton severely change, no point even considering it on a Mac Pro (high end xserve is plausible).
Intel has two lines of Xeon processors:
* The 5000 series is DP (dual processor, like Woodcrest, Clovertown)
* The 7000 series MP (multi processor - eg 4+ processors)
Tigerton is supposed to be an MP version of Clovertown. Meaning, you can have as many chips as the motherboard supports, and just like Clovertown its an MCM (two processors in one package). 7000's are also about 5-10x the price of 5000's.
So unless the specs for Tigerton severely change, no point even considering it on a Mac Pro (high end xserve is plausible).
svenas1
Jul 15, 04:55 AM
The thing that perplexes me is the relocation of the Power Supply to the top. This is either bogus info or they know something they aren't letting on about all the Liquid Cooling problems that have been arising lately in the repair world.
Plus would this not put a strain on the power cord since the cord would have its own weight hanging down on it instead of how it currently comes out of the back of the tower and immediately lays on the floor or desk surface? Something's fishy about this.
what if the plug is still at the bottom, and the connection to the actual power unit is internal? high voltage connection through the case innards - is that possible ?
Plus would this not put a strain on the power cord since the cord would have its own weight hanging down on it instead of how it currently comes out of the back of the tower and immediately lays on the floor or desk surface? Something's fishy about this.
what if the plug is still at the bottom, and the connection to the actual power unit is internal? high voltage connection through the case innards - is that possible ?
DesmoPilot
Aug 10, 06:06 PM
And they aint half brilliant. GT reminds me of a casualised WTCC (or at least the rally tracks). It's a very serious toy for very serious sim drivers.
GTR1/2 are brilliant games and the definition of Sim racing.
GTR1/2 are brilliant games and the definition of Sim racing.
840quadra
Apr 27, 08:48 AM
Did you read ANY of the news articles.
With location services turned off, this data was still be collected. And Apple says this was a "bug"
So you're wrong.
Regardless,
Carrying any type of wireless phone (even so-called dumb phones), and expecting to have no chance of being tracked, or logged in some fassion is a bit closed minded.
Because, despite how Apple excel at so many things, when it comes to handling user (quality or privacy) concerns like this, they suck.
Look at their responses to the iPhone 4 antenna issue:
"You're holding it wrong" - Blame the customer.
'Every phone has the same issue' - Our phone is bad, but no worse than anyone else's
'Let's change how the signal bars are displayed' - Let's hide the problem.
'Let's give a bumper case with the iPhone' - Let's offer a solution to some users, to get them off our back for a problem we used to deny even existed.
I'm not even saying the antenna issue was a serious problem, but Apple's dismissive attitude is only throwing fuel on the fire. If they had tackled it quicker, it would be never have been newsworthy.
It's great that Apple are addressing this (location) issue much quicker, but still it only is happening after they initially denied there was any issue, and waiting for the furore to grow before acting.
Agreed, Apple is a bit too good at putting it's foot in it's own stem.. I mean mouth. :o
With location services turned off, this data was still be collected. And Apple says this was a "bug"
So you're wrong.
Regardless,
Carrying any type of wireless phone (even so-called dumb phones), and expecting to have no chance of being tracked, or logged in some fassion is a bit closed minded.
Because, despite how Apple excel at so many things, when it comes to handling user (quality or privacy) concerns like this, they suck.
Look at their responses to the iPhone 4 antenna issue:
"You're holding it wrong" - Blame the customer.
'Every phone has the same issue' - Our phone is bad, but no worse than anyone else's
'Let's change how the signal bars are displayed' - Let's hide the problem.
'Let's give a bumper case with the iPhone' - Let's offer a solution to some users, to get them off our back for a problem we used to deny even existed.
I'm not even saying the antenna issue was a serious problem, but Apple's dismissive attitude is only throwing fuel on the fire. If they had tackled it quicker, it would be never have been newsworthy.
It's great that Apple are addressing this (location) issue much quicker, but still it only is happening after they initially denied there was any issue, and waiting for the furore to grow before acting.
Agreed, Apple is a bit too good at putting it's foot in it's own stem.. I mean mouth. :o
~Shard~
Jul 14, 02:40 PM
They'd better have something in between this and the iMac...
Did you see my above post? Great minds think a like... ;)
Did you see my above post? Great minds think a like... ;)
sukanas
Apr 25, 01:36 PM
money grubbers
shelterpaw
Sep 13, 12:05 PM
Yes, that's true.
It's also true that most of the time, most people aren't even maxing out ONE core never mind eight.
And when they do, their program won't get any faster unless it's multithreaded and able to run on multiple cores at once.
The Mac Pro isn't for most people. It's for professionals and professional applications, which are usally multithreaded, and will take advantage of the capabilities.
If you have a complaint about all these cores and not being able to take advantage of them, then this is not the computer for you. You're probably not using the software that will take advantage of them, so let it go and stop whining about it. For the those of us that do, this is great news.
It's also true that most of the time, most people aren't even maxing out ONE core never mind eight.
And when they do, their program won't get any faster unless it's multithreaded and able to run on multiple cores at once.
The Mac Pro isn't for most people. It's for professionals and professional applications, which are usally multithreaded, and will take advantage of the capabilities.
If you have a complaint about all these cores and not being able to take advantage of them, then this is not the computer for you. You're probably not using the software that will take advantage of them, so let it go and stop whining about it. For the those of us that do, this is great news.
padr?
Sep 19, 01:12 PM
then i will have to work just a little bit harder i'm afraid ;)
i'll start with the 1 gig ram, maybe 2, and later i will be upgrading,it can't stay expansive forever.
thx again for your reply
i'll start with the 1 gig ram, maybe 2, and later i will be upgrading,it can't stay expansive forever.
thx again for your reply
dethmaShine
Apr 12, 03:11 PM
3am.
Thanks.
And that's not good.
Thanks.
And that's not good.
iMikeT
Aug 26, 07:11 PM
Oh man.... I sure these new processors make their way into the PowerMac G5.
mylios101
Apr 6, 11:11 AM
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=54619&processor=i5-2537M&spec-codes=SR03W
Hope this is useful.
Hope this is useful.
Orange-DE
Jul 21, 07:10 AM
Will it be possible to plug-in any PC graphics cards into an Intel Mac Pro?
Since Apple uses Intel?s chipsets and bords, including PCI-bound hardware devices such as ethernet and sound, controllers and so on - i don?t belive that intel changed the specifications of f.e. an 945i-chipset just for burning in firmwares instead of BIOSes!?!
Apple - bring the iHome and make us happy :)
Since Apple uses Intel?s chipsets and bords, including PCI-bound hardware devices such as ethernet and sound, controllers and so on - i don?t belive that intel changed the specifications of f.e. an 945i-chipset just for burning in firmwares instead of BIOSes!?!
Apple - bring the iHome and make us happy :)
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.
Thunderbird
Aug 7, 04:41 PM
So the cat won't be out of the bag until Spring 2007?
I thought Leopard was slated for December?
Maybe that means it will actually be launched at MWSF in January
I wonder if this is a case of Redmond playing chicken with Cuppertino...
Microsoft: "We're late, so show us your O/S first."
Apple: "Sorry, not until December. But feel free to release yours first"
Microsoft: "We've delayed till March, so you go first"
Apple: "Well, we've delayed till Spring too, so you go ahead."
:D
I thought Leopard was slated for December?
Maybe that means it will actually be launched at MWSF in January
I wonder if this is a case of Redmond playing chicken with Cuppertino...
Microsoft: "We're late, so show us your O/S first."
Apple: "Sorry, not until December. But feel free to release yours first"
Microsoft: "We've delayed till March, so you go first"
Apple: "Well, we've delayed till Spring too, so you go ahead."
:D
skunk
Mar 22, 07:39 PM
I don't think Obama was "dragged" into this at all, the US has gotten willingly involved - but to what extent do you think it was stage-managed?As far as necessary to make it appear that he was the "last piece of the jigsaw" rather than its inventor.
shawnce
Nov 28, 07:05 PM
I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth? Huh?
Apple pays the record labels for every song sold via iTMS, a vast majority of the "99 cents" for a song goes to the record labels (or direct to independent artist). iTMS is providing a new sales channel with effectively zero cost to the record labels (one that avoids manufacturing, shipping and stocking of physical units). This is a totally NEW revenue stream that arguable provides the record labels more bang for their buck then prior revenue streams and it is arguable more secure from copyright violations then prior revenue streams (FairPlay DRM). It also more directly connects customers with music (easy to do impulse purchases, etc.).
Now for the other half of your statement... just why should record companies get money for every iPod sold? This type of thinking is in some ways similar to demanding that paint manufactures should get a cut of the profits of every paint brush sold.
As a side note... I support the record companies/artist going after major copyright violators using legal proceedings.
Apple pays the record labels for every song sold via iTMS, a vast majority of the "99 cents" for a song goes to the record labels (or direct to independent artist). iTMS is providing a new sales channel with effectively zero cost to the record labels (one that avoids manufacturing, shipping and stocking of physical units). This is a totally NEW revenue stream that arguable provides the record labels more bang for their buck then prior revenue streams and it is arguable more secure from copyright violations then prior revenue streams (FairPlay DRM). It also more directly connects customers with music (easy to do impulse purchases, etc.).
Now for the other half of your statement... just why should record companies get money for every iPod sold? This type of thinking is in some ways similar to demanding that paint manufactures should get a cut of the profits of every paint brush sold.
As a side note... I support the record companies/artist going after major copyright violators using legal proceedings.
dgree03
Apr 6, 04:00 PM
"Junk?" You're hilarious. Show me a single Honeycomb app that compares to GarageBand. Keynote. Pages. OmniFocus. Swords & Sworcery. Djay. The list goes on and on. Enjoy your widgets. It's too bad for your wife you don't know how to find and download good iPad apps for her.
Is every app in the app store of the same caliber as those few apps you named?(a few of which are apple made apps, so I wouldnt expectless)
There is junk in the iOS store and junk in Android.
Is every app in the app store of the same caliber as those few apps you named?(a few of which are apple made apps, so I wouldnt expectless)
There is junk in the iOS store and junk in Android.
Arcus
Apr 25, 03:46 PM
Sued for breaking what law?
Being sued and breaking the law are two different things. I can sue you for killing the tree between our yards. You didnt break any law, but I can still sue.
I kinda see where he is a bit right. If I turn off or say no to allowing the apps to use my location this might suggest to the user that it is not tracking and storing this data. I do not think that it is a stretch to make that connection.
I do agree this is way out of hand though.
Being sued and breaking the law are two different things. I can sue you for killing the tree between our yards. You didnt break any law, but I can still sue.
I kinda see where he is a bit right. If I turn off or say no to allowing the apps to use my location this might suggest to the user that it is not tracking and storing this data. I do not think that it is a stretch to make that connection.
I do agree this is way out of hand though.
marksman
Apr 25, 04:38 PM
Prove it.
The burden of proof is not on him or Apple and you can't prove a negative.
The burden of proof would be on those bringing the lawsuit or people like yourself to prove apple is doing something with this data.
The burden of proof is not on him or Apple and you can't prove a negative.
The burden of proof would be on those bringing the lawsuit or people like yourself to prove apple is doing something with this data.
LagunaSol
Apr 11, 01:27 PM
given Apple's increasing tendancy to underwhelm us with new technology features (which are in fact old by the time of their introduction 1-2 years after everyone else), I doubt we get any of these three.
Yeah, like all those trailblazing Android tablets that are 1-2 years ahead of the iPad, right? :rolleyes:
Yeah, like all those trailblazing Android tablets that are 1-2 years ahead of the iPad, right? :rolleyes:
marksman
Mar 23, 10:10 AM
LG and others had semi-smartphones with 3.5" screens back in 2006 and early 2007
Do you know what an iPhone is and does?
How is that comparable?
I have an original Palm PDA still shrink wrapped from the store from 1994. What relevance is that?
Are you trying to imply that those devices were in the least bit similar to an iPhone besides relative dimensions of the screen?
Do you know what an iPhone is and does?
How is that comparable?
I have an original Palm PDA still shrink wrapped from the store from 1994. What relevance is that?
Are you trying to imply that those devices were in the least bit similar to an iPhone besides relative dimensions of the screen?
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
