addicted44
Mar 26, 01:19 AM
Full-screen apps along is just�why haven�t we been doing this all along?
The first time this thought crossed my mind was when I first used WriteRoom, to write a paper. Many seem to think (and Apple has intimated as much) that Full Screen Apps originated from iOS. I think this is wrong. I think Apple first thought about these with WriteRoom, which is why Pages was the first App to get the Full Screen treatment.
Combining it with the new form of spaces is a genius move though.
The first time this thought crossed my mind was when I first used WriteRoom, to write a paper. Many seem to think (and Apple has intimated as much) that Full Screen Apps originated from iOS. I think this is wrong. I think Apple first thought about these with WriteRoom, which is why Pages was the first App to get the Full Screen treatment.
Combining it with the new form of spaces is a genius move though.
tortoise
Aug 7, 06:00 PM
I am sooo looking forward to this. The two top items on my OS wishlist was a competent versioning file system built-in and virtual desktops.
If I can get both, I will have damn little to complain about on the user side. I would like a deep and supported Mail.app plug-in API, for the developer side of things.
If I can get both, I will have damn little to complain about on the user side. I would like a deep and supported Mail.app plug-in API, for the developer side of things.
twoodcc
Aug 14, 05:54 PM
well to my understanding, there should be a lot of change between GT5 prologue and the full release. we won't know til it comes out, but i sure hope that it is much better.
i personally like all the cars and graphics. i like how it keeps up with how many miles you have on each car, and that you need to change the oil and everything. but maybe that's just me. its cheaper for me to play the game instead of actually buying a nice sports car.
i personally like all the cars and graphics. i like how it keeps up with how many miles you have on each car, and that you need to change the oil and everything. but maybe that's just me. its cheaper for me to play the game instead of actually buying a nice sports car.
SevenInchScrew
Aug 14, 01:20 PM
OK, one last post to clarify my stance on things, then I'm really done.
did you buy GT5: prologue?
for someone who at one point really liked the games/series, i don't see why you wouldn't give this game a shot, at least after reading reviews first. i find it very frustrating to see people make judgements before the game is even out
i hope you at least read some reviews once the game is out before making a choice like that. and i also hope that this thread hasn't led you to that decision
Yes, I did buy GT5:P, sadly. I have spent way to much money on Polyphony's games. I even bought an import PS2 off a friend so I could play some of the JDM releases. I own...
all call of duty black ops
call of duty black ops guns
Call Of Duty_ lack ops
lack ops guns pictures. call
call of duty black ops guns
call of duty black ops guns
call of duty black ops guns
call of duty black ops guns
Call of Duty Black Ops:
call of duty black ops guns.
call of duty black ops guns
Black Ops custom gun
call of duty black ops guns
call of duty black ops guns
Call of Duty 7 BlackOps
did you buy GT5: prologue?
for someone who at one point really liked the games/series, i don't see why you wouldn't give this game a shot, at least after reading reviews first. i find it very frustrating to see people make judgements before the game is even out
i hope you at least read some reviews once the game is out before making a choice like that. and i also hope that this thread hasn't led you to that decision
Yes, I did buy GT5:P, sadly. I have spent way to much money on Polyphony's games. I even bought an import PS2 off a friend so I could play some of the JDM releases. I own...
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 3, 09:54 PM
same here .. on tarmac level there always seems to be 1 car in the bunch who will cause me troubles with being really fast
I ended up bumping my focus's hp to 241 with some kind of mod (i cant remember what i did, i tested everything to see what would get me closest to 245, the limit), reduced the body weight, and put on the semi-racing flywheel. The Tarmac Rally was easy enough after that.
**spoiler alert**
You get a voucher for a "base rally car" for winning. Idk if the prize is always the same for everyone, but i got an 05 Mini. I dont need or want an 05 Mini. I sold it and added it to my Lambo fund.
**end spoiler**
I started the Italian Tour thing earlier today. Half of it is fun but half is just annoying. Theres a race with a murcielago at night, which is awesome but the damn car spins out if you dont hold the wheel perfectly straight while you break or accelerate, making it very difficult to keep any reasonable speed. The Alfa Romeo in the first leg of the tour is almost as bad. But the Ferrari race at Monza? Easy as pie, i got gold on my first attempt without much fight from the AI.
If anyone wants to add me, my PSN name is the same as my MR name: NoSmokingBandit
Perhaps we could trade cars or something. I have an '08 Ferrari California (won from the Pro series Ferrari race) i have no use for, but i really need a Lambo (any will do, needed for the Pro series Lambo race).
I ended up bumping my focus's hp to 241 with some kind of mod (i cant remember what i did, i tested everything to see what would get me closest to 245, the limit), reduced the body weight, and put on the semi-racing flywheel. The Tarmac Rally was easy enough after that.
**spoiler alert**
You get a voucher for a "base rally car" for winning. Idk if the prize is always the same for everyone, but i got an 05 Mini. I dont need or want an 05 Mini. I sold it and added it to my Lambo fund.
**end spoiler**
I started the Italian Tour thing earlier today. Half of it is fun but half is just annoying. Theres a race with a murcielago at night, which is awesome but the damn car spins out if you dont hold the wheel perfectly straight while you break or accelerate, making it very difficult to keep any reasonable speed. The Alfa Romeo in the first leg of the tour is almost as bad. But the Ferrari race at Monza? Easy as pie, i got gold on my first attempt without much fight from the AI.
If anyone wants to add me, my PSN name is the same as my MR name: NoSmokingBandit
Perhaps we could trade cars or something. I have an '08 Ferrari California (won from the Pro series Ferrari race) i have no use for, but i really need a Lambo (any will do, needed for the Pro series Lambo race).
jrhone
Sep 13, 11:58 AM
Man, I don't know why people keep saying this. On OS X, *all software utilizes the extra cores*. The only way it wouldn't is if you have less than 8 processes running, which I guarantee you that you don't. (System alone requires 20-30 processes to run.)
Granted, 8 cores won't make Mail open up faster, but there are still plenty of ways to use those cores, and that's only going to increase as apps are re-written to be more heavily multi-threaded.
NOT TRUE....The Quad core G5 people are in an uproar because Logic Pro only uses 2 cores on the G5....they updated Logic Pro so it uses 4 cores, but the G5 Quad still only uses 2 cores....there are also photoshop actions that are NOT multi core aware so will only run on one core.....Hopefully 10.5 will make all this irrelevant.
Granted, 8 cores won't make Mail open up faster, but there are still plenty of ways to use those cores, and that's only going to increase as apps are re-written to be more heavily multi-threaded.
NOT TRUE....The Quad core G5 people are in an uproar because Logic Pro only uses 2 cores on the G5....they updated Logic Pro so it uses 4 cores, but the G5 Quad still only uses 2 cores....there are also photoshop actions that are NOT multi core aware so will only run on one core.....Hopefully 10.5 will make all this irrelevant.
Iconoclysm
Apr 19, 08:34 PM
Well Rovio (Angry Birds) thinks otherwise:
http://www.insidemobileapps.com/2011/03/13/angry-birds-android-ios/
"The company said in December that it expected to make $1 million per month from Android by the end of 2010. (...) Now that the app has seen about 100 million installs across all platforms, Rovio is not getting the same initial bump in paid download revenue from Apple�s app store. On Android, the company doesn�t offer paid Angry Birds apps, but sees recurring revenue from advertising."
So they make more money with their free Android version than they do with the paid iOS version.
Actually, that article does not say they make more money - they say that the two are making about the same money RIGHT NOW. After the initial amount that they made from Apple, when revenues were much higher.
http://www.insidemobileapps.com/2011/03/13/angry-birds-android-ios/
"The company said in December that it expected to make $1 million per month from Android by the end of 2010. (...) Now that the app has seen about 100 million installs across all platforms, Rovio is not getting the same initial bump in paid download revenue from Apple�s app store. On Android, the company doesn�t offer paid Angry Birds apps, but sees recurring revenue from advertising."
So they make more money with their free Android version than they do with the paid iOS version.
Actually, that article does not say they make more money - they say that the two are making about the same money RIGHT NOW. After the initial amount that they made from Apple, when revenues were much higher.
rjlawrencejr
Apr 8, 01:44 AM
Can't you also get them from AT&T? Also, the Apple Store in Santa Monica never has a line for new iPhones or iPads for some reason. I guess they work fast?
FYI, there was a line in Santa Monica this past Sunday morning http://t.co/EYgi3S6
FYI, there was a line in Santa Monica this past Sunday morning http://t.co/EYgi3S6
Shasterball
Apr 19, 01:58 PM
Parties do not understate potential damages in a lawsuit. No way. No how.
bedifferent
Apr 11, 01:14 PM
iMovie on Mac or iOS are not about creating a movie for a paying customer. They are all about sharing your personal moments with those who are more or less interested about it. FCP is all about putting food on the table, selling the story to those who have never heard about it. Its all about art of story telling.
Exactly. Apple has been neglecting its professional products since the iPhone and iOS release, and focusing on consumer level products. A lot of people on MacRumors are new to Mac/Apple. For those of us who have used Mac's for 10+ years, mostly for work, we have become weary of the direction the company is taking for US, not for the average Joe. FCP was a standard at the time, for less than its competitors it offered a great GUI at a reasonable price point. The hardware and software are business investments.
As for the sarcastic comment regarding someone not leaving Apple now before FCP is released, it's because leaving is a huge decision. We have lots of money, time and equipment invested in our work. It's not as simple as dropping everything you have used for many, many years and investing and training yourself for another platform.
Sorry, but I am tired of the new users brought in from iPhone's and iPods and MacBook's getting snarky with the professionals who carried Apple through tough times and rely on Apple's professional line for our work. First the dedicated ACD's are neglected and replaced with ONE 27" LED LCD panel from the 27" iMac, OS X Lion is morphing into an iOS GUI, the Xeon Server processors in the Mac Pro line that replaced the affordable PowerMac G4/5's are over priced and over powered for some of our needs, Xserve was dropped not due to less sales but less marketing and development due to Apple's focus on iDevices, less OS X development such as Resolution Independence, 64-bit implementation, TRIM support for third party Sandforce SSD's, and so on. Heck, even professional such as Annie Leibovitz has left Apple due its lack of professional level products over the past four years.
There's much more to Apple than iDevices, as great as they may be. iMac's, iPads, MacBooks - they don't replace the systems Apple has left that are necessary for our work.
*and before anyone states that Apple has made billions on iDevices and iOS, they certainly can take a small amount of that cash reserve and reinvest it into a much needed market, such as a mid-level tower that fits between the top level iMac and entry level Mac Pro for those of us who need 5+ tower's but now can't afford them since the Intel transition. Apple could easily restructure their professional focus with new project managers to give a much needed refresh of their high end niche, and they could easily make a profit from that market. They created/restructured a niche market with iDevices and made a killing, why not with their professional end products? There are thousands if not more of us who would gladly pony up and stick with Apple.
Exactly. Apple has been neglecting its professional products since the iPhone and iOS release, and focusing on consumer level products. A lot of people on MacRumors are new to Mac/Apple. For those of us who have used Mac's for 10+ years, mostly for work, we have become weary of the direction the company is taking for US, not for the average Joe. FCP was a standard at the time, for less than its competitors it offered a great GUI at a reasonable price point. The hardware and software are business investments.
As for the sarcastic comment regarding someone not leaving Apple now before FCP is released, it's because leaving is a huge decision. We have lots of money, time and equipment invested in our work. It's not as simple as dropping everything you have used for many, many years and investing and training yourself for another platform.
Sorry, but I am tired of the new users brought in from iPhone's and iPods and MacBook's getting snarky with the professionals who carried Apple through tough times and rely on Apple's professional line for our work. First the dedicated ACD's are neglected and replaced with ONE 27" LED LCD panel from the 27" iMac, OS X Lion is morphing into an iOS GUI, the Xeon Server processors in the Mac Pro line that replaced the affordable PowerMac G4/5's are over priced and over powered for some of our needs, Xserve was dropped not due to less sales but less marketing and development due to Apple's focus on iDevices, less OS X development such as Resolution Independence, 64-bit implementation, TRIM support for third party Sandforce SSD's, and so on. Heck, even professional such as Annie Leibovitz has left Apple due its lack of professional level products over the past four years.
There's much more to Apple than iDevices, as great as they may be. iMac's, iPads, MacBooks - they don't replace the systems Apple has left that are necessary for our work.
*and before anyone states that Apple has made billions on iDevices and iOS, they certainly can take a small amount of that cash reserve and reinvest it into a much needed market, such as a mid-level tower that fits between the top level iMac and entry level Mac Pro for those of us who need 5+ tower's but now can't afford them since the Intel transition. Apple could easily restructure their professional focus with new project managers to give a much needed refresh of their high end niche, and they could easily make a profit from that market. They created/restructured a niche market with iDevices and made a killing, why not with their professional end products? There are thousands if not more of us who would gladly pony up and stick with Apple.
Multimedia
Jul 21, 05:59 AM
With all these new technologies with 4, 8 and eventually 24-core capacities (some time in the not too distant future) all running at 64-bit, we musn't forget that software also has tobe developed for these machienes in order to get the most out of the hardware. At the moment we aren't even maximising core-duo, let alone a quad core and all the rest!!!!
Besides, for 90% of what non-pro users do, these advances will help very little. Internet will still run at the same spead and my ipod will still chug along with USB2 etc.
Pros with pro apps acn rejoice, only if software keeps the pace!!!
Let's hope so!!!Not exactly. Multiple cores is as much about multitasking multiple applications or multiple instances of the same application simultaneously as it is about running one or two that use all the cores. The OS X system delegates multicore use to some extent already. I'm sure that all the developers will be looking at how to use all the cores Intel can throw at them at this year's WWDC. :)
I can tell you from experience that it is very easy to fill up four cores with work and max out what you can do simultaneously on the G5 Quad. So for those of us who do the kind of work that needs a lot of cores, 8 core Macs won't come soon enough.
In this example, all of the applications are running slower than they would with 8 cores. They are already slowed down by virtue of only having 4 cores to work in. Both Toast 7 and Handbrake can use more than two cores for each instance. I sometimes run as many as three of each simultaneously. They each have to run dog slow in that circumstance due to lack of core volume. So 8 is a start. 16 would be much more helpful to me immediately.
Besides, for 90% of what non-pro users do, these advances will help very little. Internet will still run at the same spead and my ipod will still chug along with USB2 etc.
Pros with pro apps acn rejoice, only if software keeps the pace!!!
Let's hope so!!!Not exactly. Multiple cores is as much about multitasking multiple applications or multiple instances of the same application simultaneously as it is about running one or two that use all the cores. The OS X system delegates multicore use to some extent already. I'm sure that all the developers will be looking at how to use all the cores Intel can throw at them at this year's WWDC. :)
I can tell you from experience that it is very easy to fill up four cores with work and max out what you can do simultaneously on the G5 Quad. So for those of us who do the kind of work that needs a lot of cores, 8 core Macs won't come soon enough.
In this example, all of the applications are running slower than they would with 8 cores. They are already slowed down by virtue of only having 4 cores to work in. Both Toast 7 and Handbrake can use more than two cores for each instance. I sometimes run as many as three of each simultaneously. They each have to run dog slow in that circumstance due to lack of core volume. So 8 is a start. 16 would be much more helpful to me immediately.
Chris Bangle
Aug 11, 11:24 AM
Ill only buy it if stupid little spoilt english kids dont buy it, i dont mean posh english kids but yobbish ones, I want it to be the coolest thing in the world. The nano has become the essential for yobbish teenage boys and girls in the uk and I just want those stupid turds to stick to their quote "amazing black v3's with itunes and video" which dont actually have itunes and video!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: Im not ageist because im 16.....
Mtn Tamale
Jul 14, 03:27 PM
If they use single woodcrest CPU's instead of Conroe in the lower end, it isn't because marketing is driving the decision, it would likely be manufacturing and operations, probably a volume/pricing decision. If the most popular Powermacs are low and high end, which I believe is true, then there is benefit to making all Woodcrest. If Apple only populated the scantily sold highest end model with Woodcrest chips they would likely have to sell them for too much.
I'm talking about Core2 Duo machines - either Conroe or Woodcrest.
Ports? My G5 tower had no more ports than any other PC I've seen. My current CD iMac actually lacks any kind of high-speed port for external hard-drives or burners.
Software? OK, I know it's supposed to be a selling point, but there's not a damn thing outside of iTunes I use in iLife enough to justify hardware prices at any level. They're nice freebies, but I happily pay the Apple Tax to have an OS that works with me rather than against me. Unquestionably worth it, but I'm not going to pretend that I'm getting good value in the (theoretical) hardware.
I think I know what the apologists will say - no one else will offer Woodcrest in a low-end pro machine, they'll use Conroe. And yeah, that's probably true, but for a reason - there's no reason to put Woodcrest in the low-end tower offering, aside from a desire to perpetuate the artifical line distinctions. Which isn't going to cut it in the Intel world.
I'm talking about Core2 Duo machines - either Conroe or Woodcrest.
Ports? My G5 tower had no more ports than any other PC I've seen. My current CD iMac actually lacks any kind of high-speed port for external hard-drives or burners.
Software? OK, I know it's supposed to be a selling point, but there's not a damn thing outside of iTunes I use in iLife enough to justify hardware prices at any level. They're nice freebies, but I happily pay the Apple Tax to have an OS that works with me rather than against me. Unquestionably worth it, but I'm not going to pretend that I'm getting good value in the (theoretical) hardware.
I think I know what the apologists will say - no one else will offer Woodcrest in a low-end pro machine, they'll use Conroe. And yeah, that's probably true, but for a reason - there's no reason to put Woodcrest in the low-end tower offering, aside from a desire to perpetuate the artifical line distinctions. Which isn't going to cut it in the Intel world.
HyperZboy
Apr 8, 01:30 AM
You are an idiot to believe any of that. BB wants to save stock for their Sunday ads. That is the drive to bring customers in. They do this with any limited product. It's their nature. They need a certain number that matches their ad. They will tell you they are out of stock but they are waiting for Sunday.
Oh, so I'm an idiot to believe any of that and you're an idiot to believe OTHER chains don't do the same thing?
HAHA! Thank You! You made me laugh. :D
Oh, so I'm an idiot to believe any of that and you're an idiot to believe OTHER chains don't do the same thing?
HAHA! Thank You! You made me laugh. :D
FF_productions
Aug 15, 01:04 PM
has adobe dropped any hints as to when CS3 will be available
2nd quarter of 2007 is what I'm hearing.
Beat me to it.
2nd quarter of 2007 is what I'm hearing.
Beat me to it.
AtHomeBoy_2000
Aug 5, 05:38 PM
BitTorrent is great if you're using a cable modem or DSL with almost equal upload/download ratios.But I'm using a Satellite..Downloads are great but the uploads are only 256k
Nothing wrong with leaching if you have to ;)
Nothing wrong with leaching if you have to ;)
dgree03
Mar 31, 02:36 PM
This wont end androids openness. It will make is so that there is more of a consistent experience amung all android devices.
We will still be able to install from "unknown sources" for example.
Relaz macrumors.. not as big as deal as you are making it.
We will still be able to install from "unknown sources" for example.
Relaz macrumors.. not as big as deal as you are making it.
Macnoviz
Jul 22, 03:03 AM
So I read in this thread that Kentsfield and Clovertown ARE compatible with Conroe and Woodcrest sockets (respectively) (Cloverton or Clovertown?)
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed. So when 128 core CPUs come out in ~10 years time, will we still be considering dual core CPUs as fast enough for our use?
I seem to remember that when the original DOS operating system was created, its RAM was limited. I can't remember exactly to how much, but it was decided that people would never use more than a few kilobytes of memory. Now we are arguing that Mac should provide no less than a gigabyte! Now we are moving to 64 bit processing, with its capability to address a few exobytes, or millions of Terabytes of storage, it seems impossible that we will ever need 128bit computing. But, no doubt, one day we will.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to), I dare say it will take a lot of memory to do, and even more processing power to manage effectively, especially if we wanted to "live" inside computers, as we will no doubt want to do someday.
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
I agree with your point on never saying a computer is too powerful, although living in computers is probably not going to happen. Sounds a bit too Matrix-like for me.
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed. So when 128 core CPUs come out in ~10 years time, will we still be considering dual core CPUs as fast enough for our use?
I seem to remember that when the original DOS operating system was created, its RAM was limited. I can't remember exactly to how much, but it was decided that people would never use more than a few kilobytes of memory. Now we are arguing that Mac should provide no less than a gigabyte! Now we are moving to 64 bit processing, with its capability to address a few exobytes, or millions of Terabytes of storage, it seems impossible that we will ever need 128bit computing. But, no doubt, one day we will.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to), I dare say it will take a lot of memory to do, and even more processing power to manage effectively, especially if we wanted to "live" inside computers, as we will no doubt want to do someday.
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
I agree with your point on never saying a computer is too powerful, although living in computers is probably not going to happen. Sounds a bit too Matrix-like for me.
Benjy91
Mar 31, 02:30 PM
Lol, the fragmentation that "doesnt exist".
I knew it would bite them in the ass someday.
I knew it would bite them in the ass someday.
FelixGV
Nov 28, 11:38 PM
Aren't you tired of companies trying to have it their way? Here's what we, as consumers, should do, if that stupid policy happened:
We should create a website, where iPod buyers could subscribe by providing a proof of their iPod purchase. The website would then declare that until Universal pays back what they have taken from every member, those members will steal Universal's music instead of buying it off of the iTS. That's what the tax is there for, right?
Sweet deal! We now have the moral justification to download all of Universal's music for 1 buck. Bring it on!
We should create a website, where iPod buyers could subscribe by providing a proof of their iPod purchase. The website would then declare that until Universal pays back what they have taken from every member, those members will steal Universal's music instead of buying it off of the iTS. That's what the tax is there for, right?
Sweet deal! We now have the moral justification to download all of Universal's music for 1 buck. Bring it on!
citizenzen
Apr 28, 04:05 PM
If liberals would stop 'crying wolf' ('claiming racism') at every corner, we might actually take them seriously and help out when there's actual evidence.
Likewise, if conservatives would not turn a blind-eye to obviously something that is racially motivated, we might actually take them seriously.
If there's not enough evidence that the birth certificate issue is racially motivated, then I can't imagine what it would require for something to meet standard.
Likewise, if conservatives would not turn a blind-eye to obviously something that is racially motivated, we might actually take them seriously.
If there's not enough evidence that the birth certificate issue is racially motivated, then I can't imagine what it would require for something to meet standard.
shamino
Jul 14, 05:26 PM
Kind of odd/funny how we seem to be going backwards in processor speeds. Instead of 3.6 GHz Pentiums, we are looking at 2.x GHz Intel Cores. It would be interesting to see how well a single Core processor matches up to PowerPC, or a Pentium, or AMD.
It just means that Intel has finally publicly recognized the validity of the MHz Myth.
Raw clock speed is meaningless. You can get better performance at a slower clock speed if you can increase parallelism. This includes features like superscalar architecture (where multiple instructions are executed per clock), deep pipelining, hyperthreading, SIMD instructions, and multi-core chips.
However, I am finding one of my predicitions finally happen...it appears that a ceiling has been currently met on how fast the current line of processors can go, and now we are relying on multiple cores/processors to distribute work, instead of relying on just one fast chip.
That's a part of the equation, but not all of it.
Higher clock speeds are possible, but it's not worth the effort. Pumping up the clock speed creates serious problems in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. Leaving the clock speed lower, but increasing parallelism will also boost performance, and keeps the power curve down at manageable levels.
It's worth noting that Intel has shipped P4-series chips at 3.4GHz. But the new chips (Woodcrest and Conroe) aren't being sold at speeds above 3GHz.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
There have already been technology briefings from Intel that talk about 4-core chips in early and 32-core chips by 2010. Similar offerings are expected from AMD.
And the Xeon-MP series processors (which will, of course, eventually get all this tech) are designed with 8-way SMP in mind. A theoretical Xeon-MP based on this 32-core tech would produce a system with 256 cores. Of course, it is doubtful that anything other than a large server would be able to take proper advantage of this, so I wouldn't ever expect to find one on a desktop.
(FWIW, Intel is looking to Sun as a rival here. Sun's latest chip - the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) - currently ships in an 8-core configuration, with each core capable of running four threads at a time, and only consuming 72W of power. Even at 1.2GHz - the top speed they're currently shipping at - this makes for a very nice server.)
It just means that Intel has finally publicly recognized the validity of the MHz Myth.
Raw clock speed is meaningless. You can get better performance at a slower clock speed if you can increase parallelism. This includes features like superscalar architecture (where multiple instructions are executed per clock), deep pipelining, hyperthreading, SIMD instructions, and multi-core chips.
However, I am finding one of my predicitions finally happen...it appears that a ceiling has been currently met on how fast the current line of processors can go, and now we are relying on multiple cores/processors to distribute work, instead of relying on just one fast chip.
That's a part of the equation, but not all of it.
Higher clock speeds are possible, but it's not worth the effort. Pumping up the clock speed creates serious problems in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. Leaving the clock speed lower, but increasing parallelism will also boost performance, and keeps the power curve down at manageable levels.
It's worth noting that Intel has shipped P4-series chips at 3.4GHz. But the new chips (Woodcrest and Conroe) aren't being sold at speeds above 3GHz.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
There have already been technology briefings from Intel that talk about 4-core chips in early and 32-core chips by 2010. Similar offerings are expected from AMD.
And the Xeon-MP series processors (which will, of course, eventually get all this tech) are designed with 8-way SMP in mind. A theoretical Xeon-MP based on this 32-core tech would produce a system with 256 cores. Of course, it is doubtful that anything other than a large server would be able to take proper advantage of this, so I wouldn't ever expect to find one on a desktop.
(FWIW, Intel is looking to Sun as a rival here. Sun's latest chip - the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) - currently ships in an 8-core configuration, with each core capable of running four threads at a time, and only consuming 72W of power. Even at 1.2GHz - the top speed they're currently shipping at - this makes for a very nice server.)
Chris Bangle
Aug 11, 11:24 AM
Ill only buy it if stupid little spoilt english kids dont buy it, i dont mean posh english kids but yobbish ones, I want it to be the coolest thing in the world. The nano has become the essential for yobbish teenage boys and girls in the uk and I just want those stupid turds to stick to their quote "amazing black v3's with itunes and video" which dont actually have itunes and video!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: Im not ageist because im 16.....
finchna
Sep 19, 08:28 AM
What a non-story. Basically no performance increases except for slightly faster chips. No other improvements mentioned. How about FW800 for 15", how about DL for 15", this is simply a money maker. :(
No comments:
Post a Comment