AhmedFaisal
Apr 29, 09:14 AM
This is Trump's MO. And it's working! Even if you don't like Obama's politics, you have to admit that Obama has much more class than Trump.
Trump is a nutjob that should be locked away in an asylum. He is a spoiled little richkid that rode a wave of luck and great circumstance when he increased his inherited fortune. There is NOTHING admirable about him and he is batshit crazy as he proves time and again...
I dislike Obama's policies because they are too right leaning for my taste. He does have style, poise and a decent diction. To compare him to Trump is an insult to him IMHO. Trump shouldn't even be compared to a Chimp considering that you'd insult the Chimp.
Trump is a nutjob that should be locked away in an asylum. He is a spoiled little richkid that rode a wave of luck and great circumstance when he increased his inherited fortune. There is NOTHING admirable about him and he is batshit crazy as he proves time and again...
I dislike Obama's policies because they are too right leaning for my taste. He does have style, poise and a decent diction. To compare him to Trump is an insult to him IMHO. Trump shouldn't even be compared to a Chimp considering that you'd insult the Chimp.
MyDesktopBroke
Apr 27, 12:37 PM
Maybe the certificate is legitimate, but I think the original short form would have been more convincing than a pristine copy of the long one. I like Obama, but I loathe his extreme liberalism.
No public health coverage, extending mideast wars, extending corporate tax cuts and Bush tax rates in general, actually lowering taxes in general to a historic low, supporting and campaigning for conservative democrats like Blanche Lincoln, Arlen Spector, etc., cabinet filled with big corporate players, didn't fight for serious Wall St. reform, didn't fight for second stimulus, dragging feet on gay rights and civil rights in general.
Where's the extremism?
No public health coverage, extending mideast wars, extending corporate tax cuts and Bush tax rates in general, actually lowering taxes in general to a historic low, supporting and campaigning for conservative democrats like Blanche Lincoln, Arlen Spector, etc., cabinet filled with big corporate players, didn't fight for serious Wall St. reform, didn't fight for second stimulus, dragging feet on gay rights and civil rights in general.
Where's the extremism?
512ke
Aug 26, 03:57 PM
If the power consumption is the same... does that mean that the Merom and the current chips suck the same amount energy while going full throttle?
If the above is true, if you turned down the Merom to match the speed of the current chips, wouldn't the Merom be drawing 20% less power?
In other words if the Merom and the current chip were both going 60 mph down the freeway, would the Merom be drawing less power?
Am I missing something here (such as the basics of electricity, the basic way that chips work, etc.)?
512ke
If the above is true, if you turned down the Merom to match the speed of the current chips, wouldn't the Merom be drawing 20% less power?
In other words if the Merom and the current chip were both going 60 mph down the freeway, would the Merom be drawing less power?
Am I missing something here (such as the basics of electricity, the basic way that chips work, etc.)?
512ke
NoNothing
Apr 7, 10:24 PM
Obviously you know little about retail and accounting.
Well fill me in. Our family used to run a small local (and successful) computer store in the 80's and if we had it, we sold it.
With cost of inventory being fairly high, why would you stop if you met a "quota"?
Well fill me in. Our family used to run a small local (and successful) computer store in the 80's and if we had it, we sold it.
With cost of inventory being fairly high, why would you stop if you met a "quota"?
shamino
Jul 14, 05:26 PM
Kind of odd/funny how we seem to be going backwards in processor speeds. Instead of 3.6 GHz Pentiums, we are looking at 2.x GHz Intel Cores. It would be interesting to see how well a single Core processor matches up to PowerPC, or a Pentium, or AMD.
It just means that Intel has finally publicly recognized the validity of the MHz Myth.
Raw clock speed is meaningless. You can get better performance at a slower clock speed if you can increase parallelism. This includes features like superscalar architecture (where multiple instructions are executed per clock), deep pipelining, hyperthreading, SIMD instructions, and multi-core chips.
However, I am finding one of my predicitions finally happen...it appears that a ceiling has been currently met on how fast the current line of processors can go, and now we are relying on multiple cores/processors to distribute work, instead of relying on just one fast chip.
That's a part of the equation, but not all of it.
Higher clock speeds are possible, but it's not worth the effort. Pumping up the clock speed creates serious problems in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. Leaving the clock speed lower, but increasing parallelism will also boost performance, and keeps the power curve down at manageable levels.
It's worth noting that Intel has shipped P4-series chips at 3.4GHz. But the new chips (Woodcrest and Conroe) aren't being sold at speeds above 3GHz.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
There have already been technology briefings from Intel that talk about 4-core chips in early and 32-core chips by 2010. Similar offerings are expected from AMD.
And the Xeon-MP series processors (which will, of course, eventually get all this tech) are designed with 8-way SMP in mind. A theoretical Xeon-MP based on this 32-core tech would produce a system with 256 cores. Of course, it is doubtful that anything other than a large server would be able to take proper advantage of this, so I wouldn't ever expect to find one on a desktop.
(FWIW, Intel is looking to Sun as a rival here. Sun's latest chip - the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) - currently ships in an 8-core configuration, with each core capable of running four threads at a time, and only consuming 72W of power. Even at 1.2GHz - the top speed they're currently shipping at - this makes for a very nice server.)
It just means that Intel has finally publicly recognized the validity of the MHz Myth.
Raw clock speed is meaningless. You can get better performance at a slower clock speed if you can increase parallelism. This includes features like superscalar architecture (where multiple instructions are executed per clock), deep pipelining, hyperthreading, SIMD instructions, and multi-core chips.
However, I am finding one of my predicitions finally happen...it appears that a ceiling has been currently met on how fast the current line of processors can go, and now we are relying on multiple cores/processors to distribute work, instead of relying on just one fast chip.
That's a part of the equation, but not all of it.
Higher clock speeds are possible, but it's not worth the effort. Pumping up the clock speed creates serious problems in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. Leaving the clock speed lower, but increasing parallelism will also boost performance, and keeps the power curve down at manageable levels.
It's worth noting that Intel has shipped P4-series chips at 3.4GHz. But the new chips (Woodcrest and Conroe) aren't being sold at speeds above 3GHz.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
There have already been technology briefings from Intel that talk about 4-core chips in early and 32-core chips by 2010. Similar offerings are expected from AMD.
And the Xeon-MP series processors (which will, of course, eventually get all this tech) are designed with 8-way SMP in mind. A theoretical Xeon-MP based on this 32-core tech would produce a system with 256 cores. Of course, it is doubtful that anything other than a large server would be able to take proper advantage of this, so I wouldn't ever expect to find one on a desktop.
(FWIW, Intel is looking to Sun as a rival here. Sun's latest chip - the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) - currently ships in an 8-core configuration, with each core capable of running four threads at a time, and only consuming 72W of power. Even at 1.2GHz - the top speed they're currently shipping at - this makes for a very nice server.)
bonehead
Nov 28, 07:02 PM
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Two things.
1) Who says the people who actually make the music would get any of this money in the first place?
2) Digital distribution is more profitable per unit than CDs. There are no manufacturing or shipping costs.
Now who is it that wants something for nothing?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Two things.
1) Who says the people who actually make the music would get any of this money in the first place?
2) Digital distribution is more profitable per unit than CDs. There are no manufacturing or shipping costs.
Now who is it that wants something for nothing?
Al Coholic
Apr 27, 09:42 AM
And Tea Party members :DYou do know that Al "the accidental politician" Franken was at the forefront of this right?
Unless that loon switched ideologies I don't think he even drinks tea.
Unless that loon switched ideologies I don't think he even drinks tea.
gnasher729
Jul 20, 01:26 PM
But as some already pointed out, many applications can't use multiple cores, therefore you won't get any performance improvements with multi cores.
True, but many applications are fast enough on a single core, and applications that are not fast enough _will_ be modified when multiple processors are common.
True, but many applications are fast enough on a single core, and applications that are not fast enough _will_ be modified when multiple processors are common.
louis Fashion
Apr 11, 12:01 PM
Hope to see VZ convergence in 2012. Hate to wait tho.....
Multimedia
Jul 30, 03:25 PM
Gee, talk about getting ahead of yourself.
Core 3 will be out before Vista is. I'm going to call it now.
Everybody, be my witness, Core 3 (any processor that goes beyond Core 2 because I don't know if they'll call it "Core 3") will be out before a consumer version of Vista is shipped.Here's an example of a post based in fantasy instead of fact. Core 3 is a distinct next generation set of processors based on a 45nm manufacturing process that will not begin before LATE 2008 and reign all of 2009 and 2010. :rolleyes:
We are your witness. And what we are witnessing is that you have not studied the Intel Roadmap at all.You don't think Vista will be out before the revision to the Core 2 Duo due in Q1 2007 with the Santa Rosa chipset??? I bet Vista will ship by the time the Santa Rosa chipset is ready, especially because MS is suggesting Vista systems use harddrives or Mobos with flash RAM to speed up the boot process.Vista ships early 2007 and way preceeds the Core 3 launch. :rolleyes:
Core 2 is with us for the next two years, all of 2007 and most of 2008.:)
Core 3 will be out before Vista is. I'm going to call it now.
Everybody, be my witness, Core 3 (any processor that goes beyond Core 2 because I don't know if they'll call it "Core 3") will be out before a consumer version of Vista is shipped.Here's an example of a post based in fantasy instead of fact. Core 3 is a distinct next generation set of processors based on a 45nm manufacturing process that will not begin before LATE 2008 and reign all of 2009 and 2010. :rolleyes:
We are your witness. And what we are witnessing is that you have not studied the Intel Roadmap at all.You don't think Vista will be out before the revision to the Core 2 Duo due in Q1 2007 with the Santa Rosa chipset??? I bet Vista will ship by the time the Santa Rosa chipset is ready, especially because MS is suggesting Vista systems use harddrives or Mobos with flash RAM to speed up the boot process.Vista ships early 2007 and way preceeds the Core 3 launch. :rolleyes:
Core 2 is with us for the next two years, all of 2007 and most of 2008.:)
Glassman
Sep 19, 02:03 AM
there's no reason not to switch to Core 2 Duo as they sell for the same price as Core Duo and are drop in replacement.. the only possible reason for the delay is supply shortage.. it's not unusual to see PC vendors announce new processors even though they are unable to ship them at that time, but at the same time they keep options for the older model, which ships instantly.. Apple thinks differently, they will announce the update when they're ready to ship and starting that day they cease selling the older models.. I think thats fair.. the only difference is that they don't make announcements several weeks in advance..
Apple has no reason not to follow Intel's speed bumps, because on each speed bump the prices shifts towards the lower models, in other words Intel keeps the prices the same but speed bumps at every level.. if Apple does not update, they're keeping extra money in their pockets..
as for the updates, I'm curious wheter it's gonna be just a processor switch or wheter they will also move from ATi to nVidia as they did in iMacs.. ATi is now owned by AMD and maybe somehow Apple bets more on nVidia because of using Intel processors only.. also I don't expect MXM slots for video cards for the same reason there's no processor socket in MBP, they ough to keep this as tight as possible..
I personally don't care about DL SuperDrive, but as they managed to fit it into same 1" thick 17" model, they should do it with 15.4" models too..
what I miss absolutely the most is WSXGA+ resolution in 15.4" and WUXGA in 17" - make that an option, it's so easy to do so - the displays are bog standard and can be exchanged w/o any redesign..
I'd be in for a model with lesser GPU like X1400 or Go 7400 because it would save battery life and run cooler.. and for those who don't play - just perfect..
otherwise I'm pretty much content with MBP..
let's see..
Apple has no reason not to follow Intel's speed bumps, because on each speed bump the prices shifts towards the lower models, in other words Intel keeps the prices the same but speed bumps at every level.. if Apple does not update, they're keeping extra money in their pockets..
as for the updates, I'm curious wheter it's gonna be just a processor switch or wheter they will also move from ATi to nVidia as they did in iMacs.. ATi is now owned by AMD and maybe somehow Apple bets more on nVidia because of using Intel processors only.. also I don't expect MXM slots for video cards for the same reason there's no processor socket in MBP, they ough to keep this as tight as possible..
I personally don't care about DL SuperDrive, but as they managed to fit it into same 1" thick 17" model, they should do it with 15.4" models too..
what I miss absolutely the most is WSXGA+ resolution in 15.4" and WUXGA in 17" - make that an option, it's so easy to do so - the displays are bog standard and can be exchanged w/o any redesign..
I'd be in for a model with lesser GPU like X1400 or Go 7400 because it would save battery life and run cooler.. and for those who don't play - just perfect..
otherwise I'm pretty much content with MBP..
let's see..
OrangeSVTguy
Apr 25, 04:23 PM
Guess we all now know what that new data center is going to be used for now.
Yannick
Sep 19, 04:33 AM
An update isn't going to make me go out and by a macbook or macbook pro. I'm waiting for leopard.
This is quite about how I feel. Waiting for Leopard and the following MacBook Pro revision, meaning waiting summer 2007. Then I would try to sell my PB G4 and buy a MacBook Pro. But I guess that if the MacBook Pro would get a very good update in the next weeks, I could be tempted for Christmas� :D
This is quite about how I feel. Waiting for Leopard and the following MacBook Pro revision, meaning waiting summer 2007. Then I would try to sell my PB G4 and buy a MacBook Pro. But I guess that if the MacBook Pro would get a very good update in the next weeks, I could be tempted for Christmas� :D
kcmac
Aug 7, 08:54 PM
I don't believe that we have to wait until Spring 2007.:mad:
Oh well. Wait or not, Apple will still be way ahead of Microsoft!
I loved the Vista bashing. Better yet, it came from a French guy!:D
The French have been particularly strong lately. First Landis, Now M$. What happened to the white towel? :D ....sorry couldn't resist.
Oh well. Wait or not, Apple will still be way ahead of Microsoft!
I loved the Vista bashing. Better yet, it came from a French guy!:D
The French have been particularly strong lately. First Landis, Now M$. What happened to the white towel? :D ....sorry couldn't resist.
MacinDoc
Aug 26, 11:40 PM
I just called Apple support, I was on hold for over 20 minutes, then I was disconnected. No wonder people are unhappy :mad: :( :confused:
I mentioned this on the battery recall forum, so ignore this post if you've already read it, but I think it may help explain why this sort of thing is happening.
I know it's frustrating to wait to speak to a customer services rep when there's a potential problem with your Mac, but before complaining that Apple has a problem with customer service, let's look at things objectively.
Let's say that Apple sells approximately 12,000 computers per day (a realistic estimate, based on their most recent financial statement). If 1 in 10 customers needs to speak with a customer services rep (this estimate is high, I think, but sometimes more than one consulation is required, so I will be generous with this number), and if a rep can deal with 10 problems per day (a very conservative estimate), then Apple could theoretically provide for all of its computer-related customer service needs with a total of 120 computer-oriented customer support staff (I am excluding iPod customer support staff from this discussion). Now, that number sounds really low, so let's multiply it by 10, for a total of 1200 customer support staff (this would mean that each would normally only have to deal with one customer per day). I understand that 1.8 million batteries were recalled, and this would mean that each customer support rep would have to deal with 1500 recalled batteries. Does anyone think that this can be done, along with all the other usual customer service needs, in a day, a week, or even a month? Apple is going to have to divert staff from other areas to deal with this problem. Remember, the number of batteries recalled is greater than the number of computers Apple ships in a quarter!
I mentioned this on the battery recall forum, so ignore this post if you've already read it, but I think it may help explain why this sort of thing is happening.
I know it's frustrating to wait to speak to a customer services rep when there's a potential problem with your Mac, but before complaining that Apple has a problem with customer service, let's look at things objectively.
Let's say that Apple sells approximately 12,000 computers per day (a realistic estimate, based on their most recent financial statement). If 1 in 10 customers needs to speak with a customer services rep (this estimate is high, I think, but sometimes more than one consulation is required, so I will be generous with this number), and if a rep can deal with 10 problems per day (a very conservative estimate), then Apple could theoretically provide for all of its computer-related customer service needs with a total of 120 computer-oriented customer support staff (I am excluding iPod customer support staff from this discussion). Now, that number sounds really low, so let's multiply it by 10, for a total of 1200 customer support staff (this would mean that each would normally only have to deal with one customer per day). I understand that 1.8 million batteries were recalled, and this would mean that each customer support rep would have to deal with 1500 recalled batteries. Does anyone think that this can be done, along with all the other usual customer service needs, in a day, a week, or even a month? Apple is going to have to divert staff from other areas to deal with this problem. Remember, the number of batteries recalled is greater than the number of computers Apple ships in a quarter!
toddybody
Apr 19, 02:37 PM
Similarities aside...Samsung cannot be hurting Apple sales as a result of this line. Move on Apple
daneoni
Aug 27, 07:34 PM
Now. But how much have iMac prices changed since release? I don't think they have. They released the iMac and MBP lines around the same time Yonah was intro'ed, and the iMacs did not see any speed bumps or price changes that I know of. Therefore they should be able to implement similar pricing with Conroe @ 2.4GHz, just with a profit margin closer to the iMac release amounts.
Of course they could always go for the 2.13GHz version, which is less expensive, and still plenty faster than the existing 1.83 :)
20" iMac prices have reduced....at least in the UK
Of course they could always go for the 2.13GHz version, which is less expensive, and still plenty faster than the existing 1.83 :)
20" iMac prices have reduced....at least in the UK
E.Lizardo
Apr 8, 06:38 AM
Doesn't affect me.Wouldn't purchase anything from BB unless it was a matter of life and death.They are scum.
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...
mr.steevo
Apr 28, 04:51 PM
This thread is Still rattling on about this?
The Titanic is still sinking...
The Titanic is still sinking...
AppleKrate
Sep 19, 07:53 AM
... and actually getting any work done.
speaking of which...
speaking of which...
evil89
Mar 31, 04:32 PM
That's ridiculous.. If It was for HTC, my Hero would have it's support blocked in a 2.1 buggish system with a daylong battery life.. Thanks to "cooked" rom I've 2.3 Gingerbread with an overclocked phone, terminal access and 5 day of battery...
Stupid.. stupid move indeed...
Stupid.. stupid move indeed...
blahblah100
Mar 31, 05:51 PM
I used to have a friend who would spend days tweaking the LINUX OS code so that his browser would look super duper cool.
How many people like that do you know?
Really? I would have thought he would have tweaked the code to the actual browser.
How many people like that do you know?
Really? I would have thought he would have tweaked the code to the actual browser.
Dan==
Jul 27, 04:06 PM
But its like ATI simply naming one of their chips ATI Radeon with no additional naming (being something like X1800 etc.). Why not something like Mac Plus, Mac Extra, Mac Express... I could go on.
Those are all fine.
Well, the Mac Plus is pretty slow these days. What was that - 8Mhz?
Too bad the Mac Mini wasn't named the Mac Nano. Then we could have named this one the Mac Mini.
Those are all fine.
Well, the Mac Plus is pretty slow these days. What was that - 8Mhz?
Too bad the Mac Mini wasn't named the Mac Nano. Then we could have named this one the Mac Mini.
No comments:
Post a Comment