lilo777
Apr 3, 12:13 AM
Great ad. When they can't compete on specs Apple should try to use fuzzy math (sorry, logic) to convince people that there is more to their products. That's the only way for Apple to keep the profit margin.
dongmin
Sep 6, 10:08 PM
Rentals...
The studios won't go for it because people will figure out a way to record off the streams and/or rented file. You can argue that people'll figure out a way to crack the purchased movie fiels too, but at least in this case the studio has the $10 or $15 for it instead of $4. Personally, I love the Netflix model, but I don't see the studios going for it.
Burning DVDs...
The new hardware from Apple (video iPod and video-streaming Airport) will make DVD players obsolete. Really, why hassle with discs when you get just browse and play via Front Row?
As for backing up, you can easily back up the .m4v file onto a HD or DVD-R (data). Why would you need to burn a video DVD, except for the convenience of playing on a stand-alone DVD player (which I addressed above)?
The studios won't go for it because people will figure out a way to record off the streams and/or rented file. You can argue that people'll figure out a way to crack the purchased movie fiels too, but at least in this case the studio has the $10 or $15 for it instead of $4. Personally, I love the Netflix model, but I don't see the studios going for it.
Burning DVDs...
The new hardware from Apple (video iPod and video-streaming Airport) will make DVD players obsolete. Really, why hassle with discs when you get just browse and play via Front Row?
As for backing up, you can easily back up the .m4v file onto a HD or DVD-R (data). Why would you need to burn a video DVD, except for the convenience of playing on a stand-alone DVD player (which I addressed above)?
Multimedia
Nov 25, 03:11 PM
Certainly not the most expensive mac ever sold. The 1990-1992 40 Mhz II fx @ $8,970-$10,970 (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_ii/stats/mac_iifx.html) was shipping while the 1989-1993 II ci sported an MSRP of $8,800 at 25Mhz (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_ii/stats/mac_iici.html). Cheapest the ci sold for even at developer discount at the end of its amazingly long 4+ year run was over $3,300, and those were early 90's dollars.
So to my mind, a few grand on a new machine these days is dirt cheap.I forgot that. You are so right. Apple marketing would be well served to use that fact by reminding 8-core customers what they had to pay back in the day for what is practically NOTHING today. Thanks for that correction. Man that was a lot of money for so little power back then. :(
Both could hold no more than 128MB of RAM running on a 40MHz or 25MHz bus respectively. Biggest possible HD was 160MB. Wow. Talk about a quantum leap. :eek:
So to my mind, a few grand on a new machine these days is dirt cheap.I forgot that. You are so right. Apple marketing would be well served to use that fact by reminding 8-core customers what they had to pay back in the day for what is practically NOTHING today. Thanks for that correction. Man that was a lot of money for so little power back then. :(
Both could hold no more than 128MB of RAM running on a 40MHz or 25MHz bus respectively. Biggest possible HD was 160MB. Wow. Talk about a quantum leap. :eek:
MacRumors
Nov 15, 07:53 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Intel officially introduced (http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/7120/53/) its family of quad-core processors on Tuesday. The new processors include the Xeon 5300 (Clovertown) and Core 2 Extreme (Kentsfield) models.
The quad-core Xeon 5300 (Clowertown) represents a pin-compatible replacement for the current dual-core Xeon 5160 (Woodcrest) processors that currently reside in the Mac Pro. This possibility was previously demonstrated (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060913074907.shtml) by AnandTech when they successfully dropped Clovertown samples into the current Mac Pro. No benchmarks were available at that time, but CNet has now posted (http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6663792.html?tag=blog) benchmarks of this same configuration:
Peacock Walk Wall Mural
wallpaper murals for kids.
Wall Murals for Kids and Teens
custom wall mural
Galaxy Wall Minute Mural
basis of wallpaper murals
painted wall murals, wall
Kids Wallpaper Murals
Wall Mural Painting Artists
wallpaper murals for kids.
window wallpaper mural
Military Helicopter Wall Mural
Car Racers Wallpaper Mural
wallpaper murals forest.
children#39;s wallpaper murals
Intel officially introduced (http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/7120/53/) its family of quad-core processors on Tuesday. The new processors include the Xeon 5300 (Clovertown) and Core 2 Extreme (Kentsfield) models.
The quad-core Xeon 5300 (Clowertown) represents a pin-compatible replacement for the current dual-core Xeon 5160 (Woodcrest) processors that currently reside in the Mac Pro. This possibility was previously demonstrated (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060913074907.shtml) by AnandTech when they successfully dropped Clovertown samples into the current Mac Pro. No benchmarks were available at that time, but CNet has now posted (http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6663792.html?tag=blog) benchmarks of this same configuration:
AvSRoCkCO1067
Jul 13, 11:42 PM
Meh, Apple came out with that Express Card slot for the MacBook Pro kind of early as well...but I'm with most people in arguing that a blue-ray drive won't see the light of day in Apple computers until early 2007.
andrewbecks
May 2, 08:40 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
As I'm sure others have noted, this jus seems less efficient than CMD-delete. I suppose more options are good, and I get this is a transition towards a more pervasive touch interface, but for computers with physical keyboards, this leaves me cold.
I always wanted a CMD-delete action for Dashboard; this seems like a step back.
Agreed. I prefer Command + Delete, but I suppose it's nice to have options. Personally, I'm not much of a fan of the launchpad for OS X idea, but I'm sure it appeals to some people.
As I'm sure others have noted, this jus seems less efficient than CMD-delete. I suppose more options are good, and I get this is a transition towards a more pervasive touch interface, but for computers with physical keyboards, this leaves me cold.
I always wanted a CMD-delete action for Dashboard; this seems like a step back.
Agreed. I prefer Command + Delete, but I suppose it's nice to have options. Personally, I'm not much of a fan of the launchpad for OS X idea, but I'm sure it appeals to some people.
floatingspirit
Jan 12, 01:36 PM
................... I hardly EVER use my optical drive. Why am I carrying it everywhere I go?
Here, here! Though I use the optical drive plenty at home or in the office, I have never carried my laptop to a place with the intention of using or playing a cd or dvd. I would love the option to have a slimmed down macbook. In fact, I might carry it around even more just because it's that much easier to do.
Here, here! Though I use the optical drive plenty at home or in the office, I have never carried my laptop to a place with the intention of using or playing a cd or dvd. I would love the option to have a slimmed down macbook. In fact, I might carry it around even more just because it's that much easier to do.
ngenerator
Sep 14, 08:57 AM
This story gets buried in the blog and a story of ninja stars makes page one? No Apple bias here. :rolleyes:
I lol'ed, how is this not a larger story? Wth is going on today?!?
I lol'ed, how is this not a larger story? Wth is going on today?!?
AppleNewton
Mar 1, 06:02 PM
Are the little glowing boxes hard drives? If so, how much space do you have sitting there?
Yep all of them are hard drives, i have 2TB in each one and then a RAID-0 with 2x2TB. I keep most for back ups of Photos, Music and Movies and OS clones (i'm fairly meticulous with back ups and having them on more than just one drive..but most duplicated clones are taken offline and stored after back up).
One is used as my external iTunes library as there isnt enough space on the SSD and the others are free space, diagnostic drives, work drives used to do audio/video or photo storage/editing
Yep all of them are hard drives, i have 2TB in each one and then a RAID-0 with 2x2TB. I keep most for back ups of Photos, Music and Movies and OS clones (i'm fairly meticulous with back ups and having them on more than just one drive..but most duplicated clones are taken offline and stored after back up).
One is used as my external iTunes library as there isnt enough space on the SSD and the others are free space, diagnostic drives, work drives used to do audio/video or photo storage/editing
AlphaDogg
Feb 25, 10:25 PM
I forgot to post my setup while I was on an airplane from DIA to LAX (Denver Int'l Airport to Los Angeles International Airport). I didn't get a chance to take a pic of my setup in the cabin that I was staying at. My setup in the cabin was basically: I plugged my MB into my Belkin surge protector/dual USB adapter.
It looks like this:
http://www.coolgadgets.org/Mar08/belkin_surge_protector_USB_charger.jpg
I had my iPhone plugged into it, and my friends who were staying in the cabin would switch off who used the other port to charge their iPods. A couple of my friends used the AC outlets on the surge protector to charge their cell phones.
I would leave my MB plugged in during the day, alternating between two batteries (one battery one day, the other battery the next day). The only chance that I got to use my MB was at night, after we did all of our activities (hiking, bowling, night hiking, going out to eat on Pico Blvd, etc...), so I would just grab the MB from the charger, bring it to my bed, and watch a movie or TV show on iTunes. I would leave it by my bed when I was finished with it, and plug it in in the morning. I had my iPhone jailbroken (still is) with MyWi, expecting to be streaming video, skyping, etc... But the ATT coverage map lied to me. Stupid hills in Simi Valley. :mad:
But it was a very nice break from the internet.
Pic of my airplane setup (I was watching one of the Back to the Future movies):
http://i736.photobucket.com/albums/xx1/igesundheit/photo-11.jpg
I hadn't used the MB for so long. I missed using my MBP's spacious trackpad :(. I brought the MB because I didn't want the MBP to get broken.
Btw, it was a class trip at my Jewish school (hence the going out to dinner on Pico Blvd). The kosher food in LA is AMAZING!!
It looks like this:
http://www.coolgadgets.org/Mar08/belkin_surge_protector_USB_charger.jpg
I had my iPhone plugged into it, and my friends who were staying in the cabin would switch off who used the other port to charge their iPods. A couple of my friends used the AC outlets on the surge protector to charge their cell phones.
I would leave my MB plugged in during the day, alternating between two batteries (one battery one day, the other battery the next day). The only chance that I got to use my MB was at night, after we did all of our activities (hiking, bowling, night hiking, going out to eat on Pico Blvd, etc...), so I would just grab the MB from the charger, bring it to my bed, and watch a movie or TV show on iTunes. I would leave it by my bed when I was finished with it, and plug it in in the morning. I had my iPhone jailbroken (still is) with MyWi, expecting to be streaming video, skyping, etc... But the ATT coverage map lied to me. Stupid hills in Simi Valley. :mad:
But it was a very nice break from the internet.
Pic of my airplane setup (I was watching one of the Back to the Future movies):
http://i736.photobucket.com/albums/xx1/igesundheit/photo-11.jpg
I hadn't used the MB for so long. I missed using my MBP's spacious trackpad :(. I brought the MB because I didn't want the MBP to get broken.
Btw, it was a class trip at my Jewish school (hence the going out to dinner on Pico Blvd). The kosher food in LA is AMAZING!!
Phishin' it
Oct 23, 09:32 AM
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/intelcoreduo.html
That no longer exists. Go to the mbp page and click the core duo icon, and I get a page not found.
This will probably change by the time anyone verifies it. :rolleyes:
I got the same thing.
That no longer exists. Go to the mbp page and click the core duo icon, and I get a page not found.
This will probably change by the time anyone verifies it. :rolleyes:
I got the same thing.
milbournosphere
Mar 22, 04:17 PM
Just curious, Why?
In-car usage. I use my classic most in the car. I appreciate its tactile feedback. It would be awesome if I could use a Bluetooth stereo connection to play my music instead of a crappy FM adapter. I'd buy a new one if it had Bluetooth capability.
In-car usage. I use my classic most in the car. I appreciate its tactile feedback. It would be awesome if I could use a Bluetooth stereo connection to play my music instead of a crappy FM adapter. I'd buy a new one if it had Bluetooth capability.
yetanotherdave
Nov 25, 07:06 PM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51O1uMSRhXL._SS500_.jpg
Just got back from seeing him live. Brilliant gig. Bought this DVD at the gig.
Just got back from seeing him live. Brilliant gig. Bought this DVD at the gig.
Multimedia
Sep 8, 09:38 PM
Well, the update certainly wasn't jaw-dropping, it was just a normal product cycle update. So in comparison to the new CPU's in the iMac, oh, and the whole 24" screen business, the mini update kind of pales in comparison.
That said, I did buy one today from CompUSA! :D I was very surprised that they had them in already, they even got some of the new low end iMacs yesterday, no 24 inchers yet.
So now my office will be pleasantly furnished with a new Mac mini, wireless keyboard and Mighty Mouse. Everyone else in the building runs Windows (although a few have ACD's), but it shouldn't be too difficult to convert them once they see my little powerhouse of a mini. My boss was already blown away when I showed it to him, he called in three other people to look at it.
Fish in a barrel, my friends. ;)
Mine: Dual 2.0 G5 PowerMac - survived lightning strike
Wife: 1Ghz G4 iBook
30gig iPod Video w/ IS
Airport Express - didn't survive lightning Did you buy the 1.66 or 1.83 model? Would You Mind Comparative Testing It Against Your Dual 2 G5 Please? I need to know if it is in fact faster even at these slower speeds. I have a spare Dual 2 G5 here now I got at Fry's for $864.26 a few weeks ago. I need to know how it stacks up to a mini in performance.
When I was at Fry's yesterday, I tried a few things on a 1.83 MacBook and found it to be much slower than I expected - I think slower than the dual 2 G5. What do you think? Can you put them side by side and run some comparisons?
That said, I did buy one today from CompUSA! :D I was very surprised that they had them in already, they even got some of the new low end iMacs yesterday, no 24 inchers yet.
So now my office will be pleasantly furnished with a new Mac mini, wireless keyboard and Mighty Mouse. Everyone else in the building runs Windows (although a few have ACD's), but it shouldn't be too difficult to convert them once they see my little powerhouse of a mini. My boss was already blown away when I showed it to him, he called in three other people to look at it.
Fish in a barrel, my friends. ;)
Mine: Dual 2.0 G5 PowerMac - survived lightning strike
Wife: 1Ghz G4 iBook
30gig iPod Video w/ IS
Airport Express - didn't survive lightning Did you buy the 1.66 or 1.83 model? Would You Mind Comparative Testing It Against Your Dual 2 G5 Please? I need to know if it is in fact faster even at these slower speeds. I have a spare Dual 2 G5 here now I got at Fry's for $864.26 a few weeks ago. I need to know how it stacks up to a mini in performance.
When I was at Fry's yesterday, I tried a few things on a 1.83 MacBook and found it to be much slower than I expected - I think slower than the dual 2 G5. What do you think? Can you put them side by side and run some comparisons?
AFPoster
Mar 22, 01:17 PM
His profile says he's the Director of IT. Who am I to question that?
It also says "If you could describe an instigator it would be me."
It also says "If you could describe an instigator it would be me."
AppliedVisual
Nov 15, 12:34 PM
You are not a developer, I take it?
Are you seriously suggesting that a developer should ship a product with features that are not only untested, but haven't even been tried out?
What do you prefer: Unpack 8 core Mac Pro, install Handbrake, run it, 50 percent CPU usage, or unpack 8 core Mac Pro, install Handbrake, run it, kaboom!
Being a developer with a fair bit of graphics programming and multithreaded development experience, I would say the solution is somewhere in-between. There's no reason software isn't being planned for the upcoming CPU architectures and newer versions being developed to handle such. In other words, it's no secret that this hardware is coming, we've known about quad-core clovertown CPUs for nearly a year.. Engineering samples started shipping several months ago (early september, IIRC). Too bad Apple doesn't make pre-release hardware available via higher-level ADC programs, only a select few get the priviledge.
Programmers should make the effort to accommodate upcoming multi-core designs into their software development cycle. Once a new system is released, it should be a minimal effort to test and tweak the software for the new system and quickly release an update, thus making their customers only wait a week or two from when the systems first ship as opposed to several weeks/months while much of an application is re-written to accommodate 8 cores since the last version was hard-coded to handle 4. And then the cycle starts again in 18 months when 12 or 16 core chips start shipping. I don't think the software industry has really warmed-up to the multi-core paradigm just yet. They have been resisting it for years as anyone who has run multiprocessor systems over the years will attest to. But this is the way it's going to be for a while and eventually we'll hit a core barrier, just as the MHz barrier popped up. Both Intel and AMD are predicting 80 to 120 cores being the max for the x86 architecture. So start planning and figuring how to micro-manage threads and fibers within your code because we'll be hitting 16 to 24 cores by 2010 and MHz per core isn't going to creep much past 3GHz. And the current thread per task, thread per CPU core mentality that many programmers have is not the proper way to approach this.
Are you seriously suggesting that a developer should ship a product with features that are not only untested, but haven't even been tried out?
What do you prefer: Unpack 8 core Mac Pro, install Handbrake, run it, 50 percent CPU usage, or unpack 8 core Mac Pro, install Handbrake, run it, kaboom!
Being a developer with a fair bit of graphics programming and multithreaded development experience, I would say the solution is somewhere in-between. There's no reason software isn't being planned for the upcoming CPU architectures and newer versions being developed to handle such. In other words, it's no secret that this hardware is coming, we've known about quad-core clovertown CPUs for nearly a year.. Engineering samples started shipping several months ago (early september, IIRC). Too bad Apple doesn't make pre-release hardware available via higher-level ADC programs, only a select few get the priviledge.
Programmers should make the effort to accommodate upcoming multi-core designs into their software development cycle. Once a new system is released, it should be a minimal effort to test and tweak the software for the new system and quickly release an update, thus making their customers only wait a week or two from when the systems first ship as opposed to several weeks/months while much of an application is re-written to accommodate 8 cores since the last version was hard-coded to handle 4. And then the cycle starts again in 18 months when 12 or 16 core chips start shipping. I don't think the software industry has really warmed-up to the multi-core paradigm just yet. They have been resisting it for years as anyone who has run multiprocessor systems over the years will attest to. But this is the way it's going to be for a while and eventually we'll hit a core barrier, just as the MHz barrier popped up. Both Intel and AMD are predicting 80 to 120 cores being the max for the x86 architecture. So start planning and figuring how to micro-manage threads and fibers within your code because we'll be hitting 16 to 24 cores by 2010 and MHz per core isn't going to creep much past 3GHz. And the current thread per task, thread per CPU core mentality that many programmers have is not the proper way to approach this.
bluewire
Sep 1, 01:56 PM
Most of the posts in this thread are about the 23" screen. Yes, I think it will happen to allow the imac to play 1080i/1080p HD.
But, how about the processors? Apple needs to have a Core 2 (Conroe not Merom) inside the imac. The imac is not a conventionally size desktop (not as much room inside as a tower) but Apple can not continue to use a laptop processor in the imac. If they do, then how will the Conroe be used in Apple's line up? In a Mac tower? I don't think so. Surely, a 23" iMac could house the Conroe suitably?
So I would say that the 23" iMac would kill 2 birds - Conroe and HD for the home user. :)
Merom is 64 bit enabled, IIRC
But, how about the processors? Apple needs to have a Core 2 (Conroe not Merom) inside the imac. The imac is not a conventionally size desktop (not as much room inside as a tower) but Apple can not continue to use a laptop processor in the imac. If they do, then how will the Conroe be used in Apple's line up? In a Mac tower? I don't think so. Surely, a 23" iMac could house the Conroe suitably?
So I would say that the 23" iMac would kill 2 birds - Conroe and HD for the home user. :)
Merom is 64 bit enabled, IIRC
arnop
Nov 28, 05:06 PM
Mandarin Oriental Hong Kong for a couple of nights at the end of the month
toddybody
Apr 19, 02:15 PM
Seriously?! How long have you been waiting? Since last refresh?
Keep dreaming. They couldn't even get a Radeon HD 5770, let alone a 5850. The best that could be done was a 5750 in the 27", and while it's not a terrible GPU, it's certainly nowhere near pro-level.
Lulz to that. It's not like those things weren't key to the Early 2011 MacBook Pros being as critically acclaimed as they are now.
No. While Mac mini updates could be right around the corner, the two are on different release timelines and aren't always released at the same time. Essentially, it's irrelevant.
If the 5750 was the best that we got on the highest end model of current, then I'd be shocked if we got anything past 6770. We're definitely not getting cards that use up as much power as the iMac itself or require a second six-pin connector in the Desktop PCIe equivalent.
Since July 2010; not even a full year really.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it'll ever happen.
How many of those machines have you seen naked? As in, without the glass or panel with bare innards in full view? My guess is not very many. They don't have the room to engineer a better video card in the 27". It's almost a wonder they even have the room for something like the Radeon HD 5750 in what they have now. It's not like they took the design of the 21.5", gave it a larger chasis and screen and suddenly had more room to play with. Even so, as it stands, both sizes of iMac get extraordinarily hot. Sure, the 5750 in the Mid-2010 27" model draws less heat than the 4850 in the Late-2009 27" model, but that difference is negligible and even with a 6 series GPU's improvement, I doubt the difference will be substantial enough to warrant THAT much more power relative to the 6 series' lineup.
So, no, they couldn't engineer THAT much better of a card if they wanted. Not without making the iMac thicker than it already is. But it's Apple, they never do.
Keep dreaming. They couldn't even get a Radeon HD 5770, let alone a 5850. The best that could be done was a 5750 in the 27", and while it's not a terrible GPU, it's certainly nowhere near pro-level.
Lulz to that. It's not like those things weren't key to the Early 2011 MacBook Pros being as critically acclaimed as they are now.
No. While Mac mini updates could be right around the corner, the two are on different release timelines and aren't always released at the same time. Essentially, it's irrelevant.
If the 5750 was the best that we got on the highest end model of current, then I'd be shocked if we got anything past 6770. We're definitely not getting cards that use up as much power as the iMac itself or require a second six-pin connector in the Desktop PCIe equivalent.
Since July 2010; not even a full year really.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it'll ever happen.
How many of those machines have you seen naked? As in, without the glass or panel with bare innards in full view? My guess is not very many. They don't have the room to engineer a better video card in the 27". It's almost a wonder they even have the room for something like the Radeon HD 5750 in what they have now. It's not like they took the design of the 21.5", gave it a larger chasis and screen and suddenly had more room to play with. Even so, as it stands, both sizes of iMac get extraordinarily hot. Sure, the 5750 in the Mid-2010 27" model draws less heat than the 4850 in the Late-2009 27" model, but that difference is negligible and even with a 6 series GPU's improvement, I doubt the difference will be substantial enough to warrant THAT much more power relative to the 6 series' lineup.
So, no, they couldn't engineer THAT much better of a card if they wanted. Not without making the iMac thicker than it already is. But it's Apple, they never do.
Multimedia
Nov 18, 11:04 AM
Also, some uses of a program make it easy to use multithreading, and others don't. As an example, if you use Handbrake to do H.264 encoding, it is work for the developers to use multiple cores (it has been posted here that it uses three cores) for encoding a single movie, but it would be absolutely easy to use four times as many cores to encode four movies simultaneously.
Something like that would be perfect if you want to encode four half hour movies, but awful if you want to encode a single two hour movie.I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. :confused: I'm kind of anti-H.264 because of how bloated the file sizes get when you use that format and because many viewers don't have H.264 players outside the Mac community. I'd rather target a file size and/or bit rate with good old fashioned universally viewable 2-pass FFmpeg encoding than not be able to do so for an H.264 encode.
My point that Handbrake could use up to 3 cores was that you could have that happening while encoding a DVD image with Toast using another 4 cores if you had an 8-core Mac without a performace-speed hit. As soon as a third process is instigated, all the programs would have to share restricted core limits but get a bunch of stuff done without us having to baby sit the queue.
I am confused by what you think about encoding 4 programs simultaneously vs. one alone. 4 simultaneously will take longer but be possilbe on the 8-core while much slower on the 4-core Macs. While one on a 4-core will do fine by itself, problem is as soon as you start doing anything else, it's speed is compromized while in an 8-core system that would-should not be the case. Does that make any sense?
Something like that would be perfect if you want to encode four half hour movies, but awful if you want to encode a single two hour movie.I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. :confused: I'm kind of anti-H.264 because of how bloated the file sizes get when you use that format and because many viewers don't have H.264 players outside the Mac community. I'd rather target a file size and/or bit rate with good old fashioned universally viewable 2-pass FFmpeg encoding than not be able to do so for an H.264 encode.
My point that Handbrake could use up to 3 cores was that you could have that happening while encoding a DVD image with Toast using another 4 cores if you had an 8-core Mac without a performace-speed hit. As soon as a third process is instigated, all the programs would have to share restricted core limits but get a bunch of stuff done without us having to baby sit the queue.
I am confused by what you think about encoding 4 programs simultaneously vs. one alone. 4 simultaneously will take longer but be possilbe on the 8-core while much slower on the 4-core Macs. While one on a 4-core will do fine by itself, problem is as soon as you start doing anything else, it's speed is compromized while in an 8-core system that would-should not be the case. Does that make any sense?
Cygnus311
Apr 2, 07:42 PM
I'll "believe" when they fix the currently unresolved and widespread quality control issues...light bleed on virtually every unit and blemishes, dents and scratches on units straight out of the box.
Fix those issues, Apple, and then I will "believe" enough to get an iPad 2.
Of the 4 in my family, none of these issues exists. Try again?
Fix those issues, Apple, and then I will "believe" enough to get an iPad 2.
Of the 4 in my family, none of these issues exists. Try again?
Heavy Fluid
Nov 25, 03:56 PM
Used, but in really good condition. Great components and tires should make this a blast to ride.
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q34/lovtrance/KHS2.jpg
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q34/lovtrance/KHS2.jpg
abhimat.gautam
Mar 31, 03:00 AM
Apple has never mentioned before the new "Scene Kit":
Introduced in Mac OS X v10.7, the Scene Kit framework enables your application to import, manipulate, and render three-dimensional assets. It supports 3D assets imported via COLLADA, an XML-based schema that facilitates the transport of 3D assets between applications. Architecturally, a scene is composed of the 3D entities of cameras, lights, and meshes. Scene Kit lets you access attributes of scene objects�for example, geometry, bounding volume, and material�and is consistent with the APIs of other graphical frameworks, such as Core Animation and Image Kit.
Scene Kit is intended for developers who quickly need to integrate 3D rendering into their applications. It doesn�t require that you have advanced graphical programming skills.
Nice, didn�t know about that.
Introduced in Mac OS X v10.7, the Scene Kit framework enables your application to import, manipulate, and render three-dimensional assets. It supports 3D assets imported via COLLADA, an XML-based schema that facilitates the transport of 3D assets between applications. Architecturally, a scene is composed of the 3D entities of cameras, lights, and meshes. Scene Kit lets you access attributes of scene objects�for example, geometry, bounding volume, and material�and is consistent with the APIs of other graphical frameworks, such as Core Animation and Image Kit.
Scene Kit is intended for developers who quickly need to integrate 3D rendering into their applications. It doesn�t require that you have advanced graphical programming skills.
Nice, didn�t know about that.
Chef Medeski
Jul 14, 10:45 AM
If it's cheaper, looks better, sounds better, and has more available titles, then why shouldn't HD DVD win? If BD used a more efficient codec, or at least had 50gb dual layer discs now (so MPEG2 could have a high bit rate at least), and the all the backing studios pumped out more titles, I'd buy it. But that isn't what it's shaping up to be right now. If they can get their act together, this could be a fight... but they are behind.
-Terry
Because current performance isn't prove of future trends, even if it is a indicator. If BD has a plan to release 50-200GB discs, while HD DVD can only make 70, then there is an advantage. If BD runs a better codec, I'm not sure but I think MPEG2/4 is a lot more flexible than VC-1 (knowning how windows is), unless its just H.2164? (forgot the number. Yet, personally I used to be a Blu-Ray fan, but now favor HD-DVD. The reason?
Well, firstly, Blu-Ray is obviously going to have a lot more DRM control, which I HATE. I HATE THAT CRAP. I mean the whole rootkit CD thing, pissed of my friends, I mean I didn't care too much cause I could jsut burn it regularily on my mac. :D! But, if a Blu-Ray player comes to mac, I'm sure DRM will come too. And man... that would suck. I really don't want my mac slowed down, so some Sony exec knows what I'm watching.
And personally, I don't see any use for discs over 50GB. I mean I probably could fit my whole music collection on one 70GB HD-DVD to back up. Hell, I could probably fit my music and photo collection if I got rid of some music I have been meaning to get around too. But even if I had to use two discs... big whoop... plus one disc of 200GB.... I don't even have 200GB of HD space ebtween 4 computers. How the hell can I use it?
Plus, with current trends, it looks like HD-DVD will have a bigger foothole by the time Sony releases the PS3... itll be late b/c of shrotage in chip and blue ray drives... and then itll be really expensive. I think Xbox might have one this one... hopefully they dont botch it with the HD-DVD thing. And if they don't then that means for $400 you can get a HD-DVD player.... thats a steal when you consider everything it does also. I just dont see Sony winning this one, unless they drop DRM and massively subsidize all products (fat chance).
-Terry
Because current performance isn't prove of future trends, even if it is a indicator. If BD has a plan to release 50-200GB discs, while HD DVD can only make 70, then there is an advantage. If BD runs a better codec, I'm not sure but I think MPEG2/4 is a lot more flexible than VC-1 (knowning how windows is), unless its just H.2164? (forgot the number. Yet, personally I used to be a Blu-Ray fan, but now favor HD-DVD. The reason?
Well, firstly, Blu-Ray is obviously going to have a lot more DRM control, which I HATE. I HATE THAT CRAP. I mean the whole rootkit CD thing, pissed of my friends, I mean I didn't care too much cause I could jsut burn it regularily on my mac. :D! But, if a Blu-Ray player comes to mac, I'm sure DRM will come too. And man... that would suck. I really don't want my mac slowed down, so some Sony exec knows what I'm watching.
And personally, I don't see any use for discs over 50GB. I mean I probably could fit my whole music collection on one 70GB HD-DVD to back up. Hell, I could probably fit my music and photo collection if I got rid of some music I have been meaning to get around too. But even if I had to use two discs... big whoop... plus one disc of 200GB.... I don't even have 200GB of HD space ebtween 4 computers. How the hell can I use it?
Plus, with current trends, it looks like HD-DVD will have a bigger foothole by the time Sony releases the PS3... itll be late b/c of shrotage in chip and blue ray drives... and then itll be really expensive. I think Xbox might have one this one... hopefully they dont botch it with the HD-DVD thing. And if they don't then that means for $400 you can get a HD-DVD player.... thats a steal when you consider everything it does also. I just dont see Sony winning this one, unless they drop DRM and massively subsidize all products (fat chance).