AhmedFaisal
Mar 15, 10:58 PM
I see you still haven't explained what you meant by "contained".
I did.
I did.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 11:58 AM
Right, schools should teach you how to think. Besides, what a kid learns at age 7 will be somewhat obsolete by the time she enters the work force at 24, seventeen years later. For all we know, she could be given a Linux box at that time, or a Chrome PC, or a Mac, or something not even invented yet instead of a Windows box.
A lot can change in almost 20 years.
A lot can change in almost 20 years.
SimD
Apr 12, 10:55 PM
So exactly what "pro" features were removed with this release?
The dull gray colour, the fact that it isn't an elite app costing over $1000 making it unavailable to the mass.. uhmm the huge instruction manual?
(/sarcasm)
The dull gray colour, the fact that it isn't an elite app costing over $1000 making it unavailable to the mass.. uhmm the huge instruction manual?
(/sarcasm)
Chupa Chupa
Apr 13, 12:40 PM
What genius decides to make a pro app accessible to the masses? We who use FCP have to make money from our business, so we need a little bit of smoke and mirrors to make our business needed, otherwise our clients will just get a 16 year old in off the street, download FCP (sorry imovie Pro or whatever they have decided to call it) and there you go we are out of work!
So basically what you are saying is that you are a two bit hack and a kid with just an ounce of creativity can easily replace you because any kid can afford a $300 program, whereas a $900 one keeps them artificially out of the game.
The really ironic thing about your post is that FCP 1.0 was a cost revolution itself bringing video editing to he masses for really the first time ever, which you took advantage of. Now that Apple is doing it again and you are at risk you seemingly outraged.
So basically what you are saying is that you are a two bit hack and a kid with just an ounce of creativity can easily replace you because any kid can afford a $300 program, whereas a $900 one keeps them artificially out of the game.
The really ironic thing about your post is that FCP 1.0 was a cost revolution itself bringing video editing to he masses for really the first time ever, which you took advantage of. Now that Apple is doing it again and you are at risk you seemingly outraged.
gnasher729
Oct 30, 01:44 PM
Thanks for the heads up. I guess I'll have to wait for someone else or me at a store to make sure Toast and Handbrake don't have those bugs. :eek:
That kind of bug is the reason why a programmer would be very hesitant to use more processors than are available on any machine the code has been tested on. It is not unlikely that for example Handbrake has a built-in limit of four processors, because the developers never had a machine with eight processors.
That kind of bug is the reason why a programmer would be very hesitant to use more processors than are available on any machine the code has been tested on. It is not unlikely that for example Handbrake has a built-in limit of four processors, because the developers never had a machine with eight processors.
mdelvecchio
Apr 21, 02:37 PM
This virus talk is full of ignorance. Mac OSX is not more secure than Windows. Windows is just targeted more, because of the marketshare.
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
youre citing "security by obscurity", and its been debunked. OS X has much more marketshare than 9 did, yet has no viruses where 9 did have viruses.
UNIX is inherently more secure than windows. its how the OSes are designed that makes windows more vulnerable.
facts.
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
youre citing "security by obscurity", and its been debunked. OS X has much more marketshare than 9 did, yet has no viruses where 9 did have viruses.
UNIX is inherently more secure than windows. its how the OSes are designed that makes windows more vulnerable.
facts.
Multimedia
Oct 6, 01:59 AM
Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
charliehustle
Oct 8, 12:18 PM
Actually, to a degree it is...
huh? how so?
so because a Ferrari has better quality, it will sell larger numbers than a Honda Civic that more people can afford..
I don't believe you
Yea, just like Microsoft did... whoops...
Traditionally, Microsoft aimed Windows Mobile at corporations that wanted Windows as a standard across PCs and handhelds
you're using the failure of one company as an excuse for another one..
different people, different enterprise..
Using that logic, apple should not even be making computers, due to their fall down prior to being saved by the ipod..
Microsoft is not Google..
How many microsoft apps do you use on your iphone? Do you use them more than Google products?
I bet you use Google maps, Google search.
Microsoft taking an open hardware approach has very little to do with their success. Its a side affect. A coincidence. Look at the video game market for further proof. MS doesn't take the desktop approach with the X-box - they parleyed their gaming successes on Windows to ease developers onto a closed hardware device. Nintendo has done that for years with their franchise characters. You cannot get a more closed ecosystem than Video games - and they are continuously successful. Even MS exploits closed ecosystems and they are finally making a profit (they would have earlier if they could have released a hardware system that wasn't so defective).
the point I was trying to make was more of a business plan compared to open or closed. I guess people are assuming all these phones are going to be priced the same (apple vs others), I highly doubt that..
in the business world, there are different markets and demographics, and yes, the iphone does well across the board, but you have to look at everything including price, cost of plans, and so on..
you might not see kids in grade 8 getting iphones, because their parents dont' want spend that that much money,
you can have a number of different situations.. but apple only has one product, and they're trying to market it toward everyone..
google will be positioned better to target different demographics compared to apple..
what if a user wants actual buttons to type on (yes people like that still do exist) how can apple make any money off them?
essentially, apple just lost a customer, and you can't make assumptions that all people want full touch screens..
some people might not like the look of the iphone,
google is giving people a choice of which handset they want, and this will result in them selling a higher number of phones..
Insulting people does not help your case.
It just bothers me when people have a very biased and closed minded opinions when it comes to apple..
I wasn't talking about anyone specifically, so sorry if I offended anyone..
huh? how so?
so because a Ferrari has better quality, it will sell larger numbers than a Honda Civic that more people can afford..
I don't believe you
Yea, just like Microsoft did... whoops...
Traditionally, Microsoft aimed Windows Mobile at corporations that wanted Windows as a standard across PCs and handhelds
you're using the failure of one company as an excuse for another one..
different people, different enterprise..
Using that logic, apple should not even be making computers, due to their fall down prior to being saved by the ipod..
Microsoft is not Google..
How many microsoft apps do you use on your iphone? Do you use them more than Google products?
I bet you use Google maps, Google search.
Microsoft taking an open hardware approach has very little to do with their success. Its a side affect. A coincidence. Look at the video game market for further proof. MS doesn't take the desktop approach with the X-box - they parleyed their gaming successes on Windows to ease developers onto a closed hardware device. Nintendo has done that for years with their franchise characters. You cannot get a more closed ecosystem than Video games - and they are continuously successful. Even MS exploits closed ecosystems and they are finally making a profit (they would have earlier if they could have released a hardware system that wasn't so defective).
the point I was trying to make was more of a business plan compared to open or closed. I guess people are assuming all these phones are going to be priced the same (apple vs others), I highly doubt that..
in the business world, there are different markets and demographics, and yes, the iphone does well across the board, but you have to look at everything including price, cost of plans, and so on..
you might not see kids in grade 8 getting iphones, because their parents dont' want spend that that much money,
you can have a number of different situations.. but apple only has one product, and they're trying to market it toward everyone..
google will be positioned better to target different demographics compared to apple..
what if a user wants actual buttons to type on (yes people like that still do exist) how can apple make any money off them?
essentially, apple just lost a customer, and you can't make assumptions that all people want full touch screens..
some people might not like the look of the iphone,
google is giving people a choice of which handset they want, and this will result in them selling a higher number of phones..
Insulting people does not help your case.
It just bothers me when people have a very biased and closed minded opinions when it comes to apple..
I wasn't talking about anyone specifically, so sorry if I offended anyone..
Xibalba
Oct 8, 07:11 AM
The Snapdragon processor is an ARM design similar to the Cortex A9 (two-issue out-of-order) and starts at 1GHz, but uses less power as it includes the baseband processor. There are already handsets shipping using it, not Android ones yet.
With three Android handset makers in stores now (Samsung, HTC, Huawei) and three more in stores before Christmas (LG, Acer and Motorola), Android is moving fast.
this will be interesting to see but it still will be quite some time before we see some quality hardware devices for Android. time will tell.
With three Android handset makers in stores now (Samsung, HTC, Huawei) and three more in stores before Christmas (LG, Acer and Motorola), Android is moving fast.
this will be interesting to see but it still will be quite some time before we see some quality hardware devices for Android. time will tell.
DroidRules
Apr 28, 09:22 AM
I'm replying just so you don't get the slightest idea in your head that you've won, or that I'm retreating. I'm sitting with my entire office laughing at your naivete and misunderstanding of what modern computer hardware is. Keep digging your hole.
Maybe your employer would like to know the entire office is slacking and on MR instead of working...... nice way to burn company time with your pathetic pecker measuring.
Maybe your employer would like to know the entire office is slacking and on MR instead of working...... nice way to burn company time with your pathetic pecker measuring.
mpstrex
Aug 29, 07:22 PM
What about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1975_Newsweek_article
Cooling, warming, cooling, warming...Sheesh, it's almost like it's mother nature, NOT us. Doesn't she know it's US! And that little ice age in the 16th to 18th centuries? what's that all about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age
Again, sheesh. It's like mother nature is doing it herself!!! And jeez, how about the greenhouse effect? I thought it was bad until my college Blue Planet teacher told us that if we didn't have it, the planet would be one big snowball. None of the students knew what to think, after years of telling us greenhouse effects are bad. Thank god all those carbon dioxide emissions are breathed up by plants...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1975_Newsweek_article
Cooling, warming, cooling, warming...Sheesh, it's almost like it's mother nature, NOT us. Doesn't she know it's US! And that little ice age in the 16th to 18th centuries? what's that all about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age
Again, sheesh. It's like mother nature is doing it herself!!! And jeez, how about the greenhouse effect? I thought it was bad until my college Blue Planet teacher told us that if we didn't have it, the planet would be one big snowball. None of the students knew what to think, after years of telling us greenhouse effects are bad. Thank god all those carbon dioxide emissions are breathed up by plants...
Icaras
Apr 12, 11:01 PM
$300! Makes me think Logic Studio X might be $199.
Amen! Bring on Logic X for said price and on the App store.
Exciting times indeed! I can't wait :D
Amen! Bring on Logic X for said price and on the App store.
Exciting times indeed! I can't wait :D
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 12:50 AM
Amazing. Not a word in response.
Bill, all gay people want is to be accepted for what we are, not what you want us to be.
Not so different from what you want, is it?
I was just replying to your previous note, Lee. But I stopped writing because I wanted to reconsider what I was saying and to ensure that I expressed my thoughts as politely as I could express them.
I accept same-sex-attracted people as they are. But I won't accept some things that many of them do.
If I harm others, I want them to tell me what harm I did. Then I'll try to make amends for what I've don't. But I need to say something that others may hate to hear, I'll say it.
Bill, all gay people want is to be accepted for what we are, not what you want us to be.
Not so different from what you want, is it?
I was just replying to your previous note, Lee. But I stopped writing because I wanted to reconsider what I was saying and to ensure that I expressed my thoughts as politely as I could express them.
I accept same-sex-attracted people as they are. But I won't accept some things that many of them do.
If I harm others, I want them to tell me what harm I did. Then I'll try to make amends for what I've don't. But I need to say something that others may hate to hear, I'll say it.
gkarris
Apr 23, 05:22 PM
I'm not cool enough to be an Atheist... :eek:
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 11:38 AM
At the risk of bumping this up to PRSI, let me just say that I thought 'saving face' was a thing of the past.
ricgnzlzcr
Jul 11, 10:47 PM
Wow, I seriously want one and seriously don't need one. That sounds like amazing power
ddtlm
Oct 10, 07:55 PM
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 05:34 PM
The trouble with DRM is that it often affects the average Joe consumer more than it hurts those it's intended to stop.Yep. This is true of many laws.
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.Actually, they get even crazier when you start making derivative works like that. I do video as a hobby and have to be very careful if someone asks me to put a commercial track on the wedding video I'm editting. Technically, I cannot do it without a syncronization license plus royalty payment agreements for each copy sold. Just try to pin down a videographer on the legality of this - it's a HUGE grey area in the fair use clause. Some artists and/or labels (so I've read) won't even let you do it if you are willing to pay for said licenses because they don't want their "art" mixed with someone elses (the video).
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.Welcome to humanity, were the one jerk always screws it up for the rest of us. :mad:
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.Actually, they get even crazier when you start making derivative works like that. I do video as a hobby and have to be very careful if someone asks me to put a commercial track on the wedding video I'm editting. Technically, I cannot do it without a syncronization license plus royalty payment agreements for each copy sold. Just try to pin down a videographer on the legality of this - it's a HUGE grey area in the fair use clause. Some artists and/or labels (so I've read) won't even let you do it if you are willing to pay for said licenses because they don't want their "art" mixed with someone elses (the video).
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.Welcome to humanity, were the one jerk always screws it up for the rest of us. :mad:
Multimedia
Nov 1, 06:04 PM
If one follows the link, the cooler Clovertons are much lower GHz.Well then color me crazy and put me back on the bus! I'm all about the top speed 2.66GHz model and nothing else. :p
SMM
Oct 21, 12:52 PM
It will come, just not with the initial production models. With the quad-core chips, Intel is already running into FSB bandwidth issues as it is. The Clovertowns are essentially dual Woodcrest CPUs stuck on the same die, sharing the same FSB and communication between the first duo-core CPU and the second duo-core CPU on that die must travel onto the FSB and into the other CPU. Between the two cores that are linked directly, data sharing can be handled through the L1 cache. So, depending on your application, the 8-core may be no better than a 4-core system -- if what your'e doing is already maxing out your CPU bus bandwidth. Somwhere down the road as Intel shifts to its 45nm production process and fully integrates all 4 cores on a single CPU (and later, 8 cores on die), we will see massive improvements in inter-core bandwidth. They will have to step-up on the FSB bandwidth though... Possibly by increasing the MHz, but more than likely we'll see some of that combined with increasing the width of the data path and possibly using multiple parallel FSB designs. ...Going to be interesting, that's for sure. And with Intel's new process and the plans for continuously jamming more cores onto a die at higher speeds, I think we're in for a real ride over the next 5 years or so.
Absolutely agree. It must be exciting to be an EE working on this stuff right now. So many options to explore. How would you design a memory bus which would be dynamic enough to adjust for a doubling of processors? If you had a fixed, known number of processors, the design is straight-forward. But, the new multi-core design is not something they have had to deal with before. I wonder how they will do it?
Absolutely agree. It must be exciting to be an EE working on this stuff right now. So many options to explore. How would you design a memory bus which would be dynamic enough to adjust for a doubling of processors? If you had a fixed, known number of processors, the design is straight-forward. But, the new multi-core design is not something they have had to deal with before. I wonder how they will do it?
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 04:29 PM
So much for taking the higher road and preaching everyone is equal etc etc etc. What a bunch of hipacrits.
Equal in what respect(s)? No one is absolutely equal to anyone else, is he?
Equal in what respect(s)? No one is absolutely equal to anyone else, is he?
AppliedVisual
Oct 25, 01:17 AM
AV/multimedia, how far do you sit from your screen?
I sit about 35 to 40" from my 30" display. Seems to be about the ideal distance. I keep the height adjusted so my eyes looking straight ahead are about 1/4 of the way down from the top of the screen. My primary display is centered straight ahead and the secondary display is on my left on an angle. Works very well. Took some getting used to as I've always had my secondary monitor on the right, but with the room layout, it worked better on the left at my new place. Ah, it's late, but I'll post a picture tomorrow tomorrow night so you can get a feel for what we're talking about. These Dell 30-inchers are just plain cool.
Other than that, I second everything Multimedia said... Although, I already bought my second Dell 30" when it broke the $1400 mark. it's just too cool having 2 of these side by side. It's almost surreal having this kind of desktop real estate. Just be aware that with the G5 Macs, you need an FX4000 of FX4500 video card to use two of these. With the Mac Pro, the FX4500 again, or the ATI X1900xt will run dual 30" displays as well and is a bargain at $240 upgrade when ordering.
I sit about 35 to 40" from my 30" display. Seems to be about the ideal distance. I keep the height adjusted so my eyes looking straight ahead are about 1/4 of the way down from the top of the screen. My primary display is centered straight ahead and the secondary display is on my left on an angle. Works very well. Took some getting used to as I've always had my secondary monitor on the right, but with the room layout, it worked better on the left at my new place. Ah, it's late, but I'll post a picture tomorrow tomorrow night so you can get a feel for what we're talking about. These Dell 30-inchers are just plain cool.
Other than that, I second everything Multimedia said... Although, I already bought my second Dell 30" when it broke the $1400 mark. it's just too cool having 2 of these side by side. It's almost surreal having this kind of desktop real estate. Just be aware that with the G5 Macs, you need an FX4000 of FX4500 video card to use two of these. With the Mac Pro, the FX4500 again, or the ATI X1900xt will run dual 30" displays as well and is a bargain at $240 upgrade when ordering.
Multimedia
Oct 30, 11:24 PM
Oh... That makes much more sense now. :cool:
Now what about instead of dealing with the solution of swapping drives in/out of the Mac Pro, instead use an external fiber channel or eSATA drive enclosure with hot-swappable drives? Fiber channel would be expensive unless you're already using it, but eSATA enclosures aren't all that bad.I already have a bunch of Adaptec eSATA/USB2 SATA enclosures that say they only work as USB2 on Macs. But I wonder if they won't work on any eSATA PCIe card we can put into the Mac Pro. How expensive are those eSATA PCIe cards anyway?
BTW I find USB2 HD hook ups to be far less problematic and just as fast or faster than FW hooks ups. Is that true?
Now what about instead of dealing with the solution of swapping drives in/out of the Mac Pro, instead use an external fiber channel or eSATA drive enclosure with hot-swappable drives? Fiber channel would be expensive unless you're already using it, but eSATA enclosures aren't all that bad.I already have a bunch of Adaptec eSATA/USB2 SATA enclosures that say they only work as USB2 on Macs. But I wonder if they won't work on any eSATA PCIe card we can put into the Mac Pro. How expensive are those eSATA PCIe cards anyway?
BTW I find USB2 HD hook ups to be far less problematic and just as fast or faster than FW hooks ups. Is that true?
ZilogZ80
Apr 14, 05:48 AM
screen maximizing is an annoyance on mac
RightZoom
RightZoom
