rtkane
Apr 6, 01:31 PM
I hope that number keeps rising; we need competition to not let Apple rest on it's laurels.
As someone who likes his Apple products, part of me laughs seeing numbers like this for the Xoom, but the other part thinks the same thing you post above--that Apple needs to have a successful competitor in the space to keep Apple's progress from stagnating. More competition will make them take bigger steps more quickly.
As someone who likes his Apple products, part of me laughs seeing numbers like this for the Xoom, but the other part thinks the same thing you post above--that Apple needs to have a successful competitor in the space to keep Apple's progress from stagnating. More competition will make them take bigger steps more quickly.
maelstromr
Apr 25, 02:31 PM
Look out Apple...the chattel are beginning to rise. I hope these power-hungry thugs (Apple) get taken to the cleaners. Sad that Apple now views our location as a resource to be exploited.
While I can't say that I like the idea of private information being recorded without clear consumer knowledge or warning, I have to wonder what exactly is getting 'exploited' here? In two years when you throw your phone out Apple secretly searches your trash, takes it and markets to you based on where you went two years ago? Give me a break. :rolleyes:
While I can't say that I like the idea of private information being recorded without clear consumer knowledge or warning, I have to wonder what exactly is getting 'exploited' here? In two years when you throw your phone out Apple secretly searches your trash, takes it and markets to you based on where you went two years ago? Give me a break. :rolleyes:
jvmxtra
Apr 6, 04:03 PM
wait, theres other brands of tablets out there?
love it!!
love it!!
YoGramMamma
Apr 6, 03:02 AM
I've posted several predictions over the past few months throughout this tread at Cinema5D:
http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=25464
Dude I took the time to read that entire post on cinema5d and I have to tip my hat to you. You have clearly thought this out. Hopefully someone at apple saw this post and is making notes! IMO (and clearly in yours) this is very much what apple needs to do. This content store idea is brilliant, makes apple more bucks, and allows content creators a way to make money on the selling end, and benefit from well made content on the receiving end. It turns videographers and photographers and motion graphic designers into "developers" ... Just without the need to know objective-C. I like it a lot. Have you tried submitting these ideas to Apple?
The idea of downloading just the core objects and have all the other stuff being in-app purchases is also brilliant and tying everything to your appleID too, since it'd let you legally install stuff on up tot 5 machines. Why I use up almost 60gb of stuff for "soundtrack loops and Dolby surround files" is beyond me.
Also this alleviates the whole final cut express/pro distinction. Essentially, fce is just fcp without any of the extra apps / plugins downloaded.
http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=25464
Dude I took the time to read that entire post on cinema5d and I have to tip my hat to you. You have clearly thought this out. Hopefully someone at apple saw this post and is making notes! IMO (and clearly in yours) this is very much what apple needs to do. This content store idea is brilliant, makes apple more bucks, and allows content creators a way to make money on the selling end, and benefit from well made content on the receiving end. It turns videographers and photographers and motion graphic designers into "developers" ... Just without the need to know objective-C. I like it a lot. Have you tried submitting these ideas to Apple?
The idea of downloading just the core objects and have all the other stuff being in-app purchases is also brilliant and tying everything to your appleID too, since it'd let you legally install stuff on up tot 5 machines. Why I use up almost 60gb of stuff for "soundtrack loops and Dolby surround files" is beyond me.
Also this alleviates the whole final cut express/pro distinction. Essentially, fce is just fcp without any of the extra apps / plugins downloaded.
gnasher729
Mar 26, 07:05 PM
so, it's beta #1? Feature complete but still has bugs to iron out.
Golden master is usually when they are confident of no bugs isn't it?
Golden master is the one that gets shipped.
"Golden master candidate" is one with no known bugs that need fixing, but there are plenty of people still testing, so you expect new bugs to come up that need fixing. You fix them and have a new "Golden master candidate". With the first "Golden master candidate" you are usually quite sure that there will be bugs found.
And you _know_ there are bugs in the Golden Master, you just reached the point where you aren't finding any more bugs. Some customers tend to be quite good at finding them :mad: which is why you have 10.6.1, 10.6.2 and so on.
Golden master is usually when they are confident of no bugs isn't it?
Golden master is the one that gets shipped.
"Golden master candidate" is one with no known bugs that need fixing, but there are plenty of people still testing, so you expect new bugs to come up that need fixing. You fix them and have a new "Golden master candidate". With the first "Golden master candidate" you are usually quite sure that there will be bugs found.
And you _know_ there are bugs in the Golden Master, you just reached the point where you aren't finding any more bugs. Some customers tend to be quite good at finding them :mad: which is why you have 10.6.1, 10.6.2 and so on.
takao
Dec 2, 04:09 PM
is it just me or does the quality of the 'Standard' cars also vary quite a bit ? i've got some which look really great (nissan fairlady '78, alfa romeo '63) and some which look barely 'acceptable' (a 90ties 'skyline')
-my biggest gripe so far: b-spec modus 'reward cars' seem to be always better than the a-spec ones ...really ? that is their way of telling us to play b-spec more ?
-also just like in gt4 the rewards in some races seem to be either:
a.) a car worse than the one you had to buy to win the race (lupo race
b.) a car which after the race has really little use since ... well the only race you can use it on is the race you just finished
-my biggest gripe so far: b-spec modus 'reward cars' seem to be always better than the a-spec ones ...really ? that is their way of telling us to play b-spec more ?
-also just like in gt4 the rewards in some races seem to be either:
a.) a car worse than the one you had to buy to win the race (lupo race
b.) a car which after the race has really little use since ... well the only race you can use it on is the race you just finished
Malligator
Mar 31, 03:49 PM
And the Apple haters do yet another 180...
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
mlrproducts
Aug 11, 10:20 AM
Hurry up and take my money Apple! Here is my wishlist, the first section is PLAUSIBLE:
1) Released for GSM sim cards (probable, maybe support for CDMA later on)
2) Bluetooth (well, I think this is a given)
3) Good integration with iCal, Mail, etc
Now what I WANT that might not happen:
4) Not tied to a service provider
5) Affordable LOL
6) Wifi built in
7) Modem support for dialup over GSM
8) Lightweight, small FF
1) Released for GSM sim cards (probable, maybe support for CDMA later on)
2) Bluetooth (well, I think this is a given)
3) Good integration with iCal, Mail, etc
Now what I WANT that might not happen:
4) Not tied to a service provider
5) Affordable LOL
6) Wifi built in
7) Modem support for dialup over GSM
8) Lightweight, small FF
Kan-O-Z
Mar 31, 02:57 PM
You could say the same thing about Apple though. The Apple fad will go away and the extremely closed ecosystem which seems to not be really developing much in terms of UI or having an actual roadmap could end iOS.
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
I am an Apple fan and I do recognize pros and cons with both platforms. When you have control and integration of hardware and software, you have a much better experience, more stability, better overall hardware quality (both hardware and software), etc. The "open" systems don't control anything so anything goes, including installing any app you may find anywhere and customize things to your hearts content.
What I would like to say is that for 95% of people out there, the advantages of iOS are far more important than the advantages of Android. Honestly most people are very happy with all of the capabilities of the iPhone (and app store) all of which the iPhone performs beautifully. On top of that the Apple ecosystem is so easy and so integrated...Android can't compete. Think about renting a movie on your iPhone, streaming songs and videos to your TV, buying songs and books on the fly, etc...on top of which many ppl have extensive iTunes content and it integrates right in. Where do you start with Andriod with all this? And remember that people on this forum are the techies...and don't represent 95% of people out there.
Kan-O-Z
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
I am an Apple fan and I do recognize pros and cons with both platforms. When you have control and integration of hardware and software, you have a much better experience, more stability, better overall hardware quality (both hardware and software), etc. The "open" systems don't control anything so anything goes, including installing any app you may find anywhere and customize things to your hearts content.
What I would like to say is that for 95% of people out there, the advantages of iOS are far more important than the advantages of Android. Honestly most people are very happy with all of the capabilities of the iPhone (and app store) all of which the iPhone performs beautifully. On top of that the Apple ecosystem is so easy and so integrated...Android can't compete. Think about renting a movie on your iPhone, streaming songs and videos to your TV, buying songs and books on the fly, etc...on top of which many ppl have extensive iTunes content and it integrates right in. Where do you start with Andriod with all this? And remember that people on this forum are the techies...and don't represent 95% of people out there.
Kan-O-Z
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
cult hero
Mar 31, 06:58 PM
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Exactly. What we need are more objective, balanced and rational sounding opinions like yours.
Exactly. What we need are more objective, balanced and rational sounding opinions like yours.
LegendKillerUK
Apr 6, 10:40 AM
"integrated graphics"... "good enough" LOL... I think I'll keep my current-gen 13" MBA. I didn't buy the world's most expensive netbook for "good enough".
You are aware the nvidia graphics in your current one are also integrated?
You are aware the nvidia graphics in your current one are also integrated?
Tones2
Apr 19, 02:39 PM
Boy. Why do we go back and forth like this arguing between fanboys and non. It's pointless. Nobody cares about your or my opinion, and you're not convincing anyone who disagrees with you as people NEVER change their opinions about anything ever.
I'm not why I do it either, but never again.
I'm not why I do it either, but never again.
Rangers30
Apr 8, 06:06 AM
Why anyone would ever choose to buy an Apple product at Best Buy over the Apple Store is beyond me. :confused:
0% interest on BB credit card? Believe me, it's the only reason I did. Their service was beyond ******. I had to practically haul someone down by the ankles to get them to notice me loitering by the Macbooks.
0% interest on BB credit card? Believe me, it's the only reason I did. Their service was beyond ******. I had to practically haul someone down by the ankles to get them to notice me loitering by the Macbooks.
CdnBook
Apr 11, 09:15 AM
Apple will release faster unicorns tomorrow, duh
QCassidy352
Apr 6, 11:58 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
So is that also true for the difference between SV and LV? If that is the case, the Core i7-2649M you cite above (2.3 LV chip) should be faster compared to the 2.3 i5 in the low end Pro 13?
Thanks!
It would be about as fast. The IGP is 150MHz slower though so graphics wise it would be slightly slower. chrmjenkins explained some smaller details but in terms of performance, i7-2649M should be similar to i5-2520M.
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but it may not be as bad as 50% drop.
True. But here's the thing. Apple generally updates these about one a year. With such a slow upgrade cycle, you'd like to see significant improvement on each update. To stay the same would be pretty mediocre. To actually move backwards is just sad.
And yes, I realize options are limited here by the spat between intel and nvidea and by the size of the air (not enough room for a big dedicated card). So I don't know what the right answer is. All I know is I won't be tempted by an upgrade to CPU when it comes with a gpu downgrade.
So is that also true for the difference between SV and LV? If that is the case, the Core i7-2649M you cite above (2.3 LV chip) should be faster compared to the 2.3 i5 in the low end Pro 13?
Thanks!
It would be about as fast. The IGP is 150MHz slower though so graphics wise it would be slightly slower. chrmjenkins explained some smaller details but in terms of performance, i7-2649M should be similar to i5-2520M.
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but it may not be as bad as 50% drop.
True. But here's the thing. Apple generally updates these about one a year. With such a slow upgrade cycle, you'd like to see significant improvement on each update. To stay the same would be pretty mediocre. To actually move backwards is just sad.
And yes, I realize options are limited here by the spat between intel and nvidea and by the size of the air (not enough room for a big dedicated card). So I don't know what the right answer is. All I know is I won't be tempted by an upgrade to CPU when it comes with a gpu downgrade.
akatsuki
Apr 6, 10:36 AM
Thunderbolt and new CPUs would make me buy on day one.
cbronfman
Apr 11, 06:44 PM
Doesn't this make sense? I think I'm close, I'm sure I forgot something / not perfectly accurate, but this seems like what Apple is shooting for. Makes sense to me...
Jan: iPhone (like original)
Mar: iPad
May: iMac/MacPro
June/Jul: Software
Sept: iPods
Nov: Laptops
The original iPhone which I purchased was released on June 29th, 2007 (I guess - wow that's a while ago) although it was announced much earlier.
Jan: iPhone (like original)
Mar: iPad
May: iMac/MacPro
June/Jul: Software
Sept: iPods
Nov: Laptops
The original iPhone which I purchased was released on June 29th, 2007 (I guess - wow that's a while ago) although it was announced much earlier.
BWhaler
Aug 26, 11:36 PM
I'm sure the GPU will also be bumped, at the very least. The MBP will probably also see some things that the MB has like a user-removable hard drive and magnetic latch. The CPU and GPU alone make it worth getting the new one, IMO.
I agree. The practical differences between the Core Duo and the Core 2 Duo in real world tests are tiny.
But a serious bump to the GPU, HD, and the other enhancements you mention certainly would make the upgrade worthwhile.
I Just Hope Apple Joins The Rest Of The Manufacturers In This Mass Announcement. In this case, I wish they wouldn't "Think Differently".
I hope you are right. I would love to buy a MBP next week.
Expect new Merom-based macs, and a new iPod, on September 18th.
I suspect you are correct, but I hope you are wrong. I'd love to get a new MBP in the next couple of weeks before my next international trip. But to your point, I am not optimistic.
I agree. The practical differences between the Core Duo and the Core 2 Duo in real world tests are tiny.
But a serious bump to the GPU, HD, and the other enhancements you mention certainly would make the upgrade worthwhile.
I Just Hope Apple Joins The Rest Of The Manufacturers In This Mass Announcement. In this case, I wish they wouldn't "Think Differently".
I hope you are right. I would love to buy a MBP next week.
Expect new Merom-based macs, and a new iPod, on September 18th.
I suspect you are correct, but I hope you are wrong. I'd love to get a new MBP in the next couple of weeks before my next international trip. But to your point, I am not optimistic.
skunk
Mar 22, 07:30 PM
Don't tell me a flagship armed with 100 Tomahawk missiles and full targeting information just happened to be passing.
manu chao
Aug 27, 05:31 AM
You're screwing up, intel. We don't want 300 trillion transistors on a 1 nm die. We want longer battery life. Idiots.
Don't blame Intel, blame Apple for not using the ULV versions of the Core Duo chips. There are other manufacturers which use them (otherwise it would not make much sense for Intel to offer them).
However, the battery life of these machines is maybe in the order of six hours only, for once because the screen, HD etc. still need the same amount of power. Making the screen smaller, using Intel graphics, maybe even a 1.8" HD, you can reduce power consumption further, most often manufacturers also reduce battery size at the same time to make the laptops lightweight, preventing you to see battery life numbers of ten hours.
Moreover, reports about machines using the ULV versions (and sometimes 1.8" HDs) do complain about the performance.
Don't blame Intel, blame Apple for not using the ULV versions of the Core Duo chips. There are other manufacturers which use them (otherwise it would not make much sense for Intel to offer them).
However, the battery life of these machines is maybe in the order of six hours only, for once because the screen, HD etc. still need the same amount of power. Making the screen smaller, using Intel graphics, maybe even a 1.8" HD, you can reduce power consumption further, most often manufacturers also reduce battery size at the same time to make the laptops lightweight, preventing you to see battery life numbers of ten hours.
Moreover, reports about machines using the ULV versions (and sometimes 1.8" HDs) do complain about the performance.
Stridder44
Nov 28, 09:06 PM
No guys, this sounds like a great idea....*cough*.....
milo
Jul 27, 11:42 AM
honestly, right now i do not believe the power differential to be worth it. it would be better to wait for chips with a larger speed differential.
Based on current pricing, the only upgrade that is really appealing right now is Core Solo mini to merom.
Based on current pricing, the only upgrade that is really appealing right now is Core Solo mini to merom.
vendettabass
Aug 12, 07:26 AM
fake obviously but it seems like a nice possibility....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5qGn7kIkMA
that'd be insane!!!
how about this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWn9bz7mjvY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5qGn7kIkMA
that'd be insane!!!
how about this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWn9bz7mjvY
No comments:
Post a Comment