janstett
Sep 13, 01:11 PM
Sheesh...just when I'm already high up enough on Apple for innovating, they throw even more leaps and bounds in there to put themselves even further ahead. I can't wait 'til my broke @$$ can finally get the money to buy a Mac and chuck all my Windows machines out the door.
I'm sure we'll see similar efforts from other PC manufacturers eventually, but let's see the software use those extra cores in Windows land. Ain't gonna happen...not on the level of what Apple's doing at least.
First, this is INTEL innovating, not Apple.
Second, Apple has been the one lagging behind on multiprocessor support. Pre OSX it was a joke of a hack to support multi CPUs in Mac OS and you had to have apps written to take advantage of it with special libraries.
On Windows, the scheduler automatically handles task scheduling no matter how many processors you have, 1 or 8. Your app doesn't have to "know" it's on a single or multiple processor system or do anything special to take advantage of multiple processors, other than threading -- which you can do on a single processor system anyway. Most applications are lazy and unimaginative, and do everything in a single thread (worse, the same thread that is processing event messages from the GUI, which is why apps lock up -- when they end up in a bad state they stop processing events from the OS and won't paint, resize, etc.). But when you take advantage of multithreading, there are some sand traps but it's a cool way to code and that's how you take advantage of multiple cores without having to know what kind of system you are on. I would assume OSX, being based on BSD, is similar, but I don't know the architecture to the degree I know Windows.
In Windows, you can set process "affinity", locking it down to a fixed processor core, through Task Manager. Don't know if you can do that in OSX...
I'm sure we'll see similar efforts from other PC manufacturers eventually, but let's see the software use those extra cores in Windows land. Ain't gonna happen...not on the level of what Apple's doing at least.
First, this is INTEL innovating, not Apple.
Second, Apple has been the one lagging behind on multiprocessor support. Pre OSX it was a joke of a hack to support multi CPUs in Mac OS and you had to have apps written to take advantage of it with special libraries.
On Windows, the scheduler automatically handles task scheduling no matter how many processors you have, 1 or 8. Your app doesn't have to "know" it's on a single or multiple processor system or do anything special to take advantage of multiple processors, other than threading -- which you can do on a single processor system anyway. Most applications are lazy and unimaginative, and do everything in a single thread (worse, the same thread that is processing event messages from the GUI, which is why apps lock up -- when they end up in a bad state they stop processing events from the OS and won't paint, resize, etc.). But when you take advantage of multithreading, there are some sand traps but it's a cool way to code and that's how you take advantage of multiple cores without having to know what kind of system you are on. I would assume OSX, being based on BSD, is similar, but I don't know the architecture to the degree I know Windows.
In Windows, you can set process "affinity", locking it down to a fixed processor core, through Task Manager. Don't know if you can do that in OSX...
tekmoe
Aug 26, 04:34 PM
hoping for a 13" mbp but it's doubtful...
BaldiMac
Apr 19, 04:00 PM
I'm speaking about estimated Q1/11 to Q4/10 numbers (the est. Q1/11 numbers is what that news was about...). And what about reading the graphs I posted yourself? :rolleyes:
Well that's a pretty disingenuous comparison for a device on an annual release schedule. Year over year would be more appropriate.
I saw the table you posted. It doesn't prove what you said.
You said "Apple is losing marketshare for over 2 years now." Apple has increased their market share by more than 50% over the last two years.
Well that's a pretty disingenuous comparison for a device on an annual release schedule. Year over year would be more appropriate.
I saw the table you posted. It doesn't prove what you said.
You said "Apple is losing marketshare for over 2 years now." Apple has increased their market share by more than 50% over the last two years.
freeny
Jul 20, 08:18 AM
I wonder what they're going to call them, Quad sounds cool but "Octa or Octo" just sounds a bit silly.
MacPro8?
The Mactopus??
Ive already trademarked "OctoCore" and "CoreOcto";)
Just keep saying it to yourself. After about the 12th time it just starts rolling off your tongue...
MacPro8?
The Mactopus??
Ive already trademarked "OctoCore" and "CoreOcto";)
Just keep saying it to yourself. After about the 12th time it just starts rolling off your tongue...
11thIndian
Apr 5, 10:17 PM
I doubt Apple will ship a new version of FCP before they ship lion, there are simply no real video editor APIs in Snow Leopard that are capable of 64 bit, QT Kit is a joke.
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
Rumor is that new FCP will be based on A/V Foundation, leaving the legacy QT Kit limitations behind, and negating the need to wait for Lion for 64bit.
http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/02/a-new-64-bit-final-cut-pro/
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
Rumor is that new FCP will be based on A/V Foundation, leaving the legacy QT Kit limitations behind, and negating the need to wait for Lion for 64bit.
http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/02/a-new-64-bit-final-cut-pro/
WhySoSerious
Mar 22, 03:47 PM
"The first iteration of Galaxy Tab 10.1 measured in at 246.2 x 170.4 x 10.9 mm and weighed 599g; this new, slimmer version is 256.6 x 172.9 x 8.6 mm and 595g."
We lost 4 grams WAHAHAHAHA !
i could laugh at the same thing concerning the ipad 1 vs ipad 2.
the ipad 2 really isn't much thinner or lighter than the first version.
We lost 4 grams WAHAHAHAHA !
i could laugh at the same thing concerning the ipad 1 vs ipad 2.
the ipad 2 really isn't much thinner or lighter than the first version.
11thIndian
Apr 11, 11:24 PM
Looking forward to the new final cut studio.
if apple is smart they will allow access to individual parts of the suite
as seperate Mac App Store downloads.
If it were possible to buy apple Motion on it's own I think many existing After Effects would be very happy to have something else to play with that can take adavantage of their hardware and deliver some fun realtime workflows...
it could be a halo product for such editors as well to end up using the whole suite...
I bought motion for 300 when it used to be sold individually, and I have spent a tonne of money since simply because I love that product.
do it apple. please.
Motion has a funny reputation. I find it quite powerful and very intuitive now that I've been using it almost exclusively for over a year. I know a lot of AE users find it very hard to make the mental leap to the different methodology, and I totally understand that as it took me several months of regular work to really adjust my headspace to the new way of thinking.
How the different parts of the Studio might be merged or changed is one of the more interesting questions for me. You could overload FCP if you tried to cram all the other apps together, but there's no question there's room for tighter integration.
It would be very surprising to see the different programs sold separately thought the appStore. The programs themselves aren't too massive [and may have been streamlined more] but the extra content for loops would make it a HEAFTY download for anyone!
This evening can't come soon enough, glad to have all the speculation over with and concentrate on what it actually is [and isn't].
If anyone comes up with a good liveblog or ustream of the presentation, remember to post it here. So far, the best coverage I can find it twitter feeds for people like Larry Jordan or Philip Hodgetts who will be in attendance.
if apple is smart they will allow access to individual parts of the suite
as seperate Mac App Store downloads.
If it were possible to buy apple Motion on it's own I think many existing After Effects would be very happy to have something else to play with that can take adavantage of their hardware and deliver some fun realtime workflows...
it could be a halo product for such editors as well to end up using the whole suite...
I bought motion for 300 when it used to be sold individually, and I have spent a tonne of money since simply because I love that product.
do it apple. please.
Motion has a funny reputation. I find it quite powerful and very intuitive now that I've been using it almost exclusively for over a year. I know a lot of AE users find it very hard to make the mental leap to the different methodology, and I totally understand that as it took me several months of regular work to really adjust my headspace to the new way of thinking.
How the different parts of the Studio might be merged or changed is one of the more interesting questions for me. You could overload FCP if you tried to cram all the other apps together, but there's no question there's room for tighter integration.
It would be very surprising to see the different programs sold separately thought the appStore. The programs themselves aren't too massive [and may have been streamlined more] but the extra content for loops would make it a HEAFTY download for anyone!
This evening can't come soon enough, glad to have all the speculation over with and concentrate on what it actually is [and isn't].
If anyone comes up with a good liveblog or ustream of the presentation, remember to post it here. So far, the best coverage I can find it twitter feeds for people like Larry Jordan or Philip Hodgetts who will be in attendance.
artistry
Nov 29, 03:06 AM
I can't see this standing up in the EU - it would be knocked down at first attempt in the European Court I'm sure.
Whatever, if someone with no Universal Music on their iPod wants to I bet they'd be able to cause a stink by asking for the 'tax' back.
I'm surprised no one's sued Universal for libel since the 'all iPod owners are thieves' thing.
Whatever, if someone with no Universal Music on their iPod wants to I bet they'd be able to cause a stink by asking for the 'tax' back.
I'm surprised no one's sued Universal for libel since the 'all iPod owners are thieves' thing.
raymondso
Sep 19, 08:51 AM
the apple store is still going very healthy now
does that mean no update today?
does that mean no update today?
Pez555
Apr 11, 12:54 PM
grrrr stop posting this macrumors, i want the iphone 5 in june!
Full of Win
Apr 25, 04:37 PM
Nike+iPod must be an even more serious privacy violation. After all, it knows how fast I'm going and my calories burned. And it sends the data to nikeplus.com! :eek:
Yeah, both iPhone/iPod and Nike+iPod store the information only on my device and sync it only to my other devices, sending it elsewhere only if I want. But if I can make money by suing about it then I'll ignore those inconvenient facts!
You are skating around the issue of user permission. If you use this app to track your location - its YOUR CHOICE. However, the issue here is that Apple is collecting the data without the option of user choice. Even turning off location services does not stop the collection and submittal to Apple of this information.
That is what is the heart of the matter - do we, as users, have the right to opt to to the collection and submittal of location data to Apple ? With your example, you do, as you can turn off the app at will. However, the same ability does not apply to what Apple is doing. BIG DIFFERENCE
Yeah, both iPhone/iPod and Nike+iPod store the information only on my device and sync it only to my other devices, sending it elsewhere only if I want. But if I can make money by suing about it then I'll ignore those inconvenient facts!
You are skating around the issue of user permission. If you use this app to track your location - its YOUR CHOICE. However, the issue here is that Apple is collecting the data without the option of user choice. Even turning off location services does not stop the collection and submittal to Apple of this information.
That is what is the heart of the matter - do we, as users, have the right to opt to to the collection and submittal of location data to Apple ? With your example, you do, as you can turn off the app at will. However, the same ability does not apply to what Apple is doing. BIG DIFFERENCE
edk99
Apr 11, 11:33 AM
If it is going to be a 4g/LTE iPhone then this works for me. I have no complaints with my iPhone 4 so waiting another 4-6 months is fine with me.
samcraig
Apr 27, 08:41 AM
I looked at the map from a recent road trip. It showed cell towers 50 miles off the route I was on--probably next towers over in case I headed that direction. It's the apple bashing trolls who are blowing this way out of proportion.
No it's not.
And I think MOST people aren't blowing anything out of proportion. Being concerned about tracking information/privacy issues is important. Most people (stop generalizing just because some on this board are) are NOT over-reacting but were calling for deeper investigation into the issue.
No it's not.
And I think MOST people aren't blowing anything out of proportion. Being concerned about tracking information/privacy issues is important. Most people (stop generalizing just because some on this board are) are NOT over-reacting but were calling for deeper investigation into the issue.
FF_productions
Jul 14, 04:14 PM
2003: "In 12 months, we'll be at 3GHz".
Mid 2006: "I want to talk about 2.66GHz" although 4 cores running at 2.66GHz (Yum! :D ).
Steve Jobs really must have been embarassed after claiming we'd have 3 ghz when we still can't even pass 2.7 ghz without a huge unstable liquid cooling system. Maybe Intel will bring us 3 ghz next month, a quad 3 ghz Xeon, does that even exist?
My problem with having 4 cores at 2.6 ghz is what will the other Mac Pro's offer? One more month...
Mid 2006: "I want to talk about 2.66GHz" although 4 cores running at 2.66GHz (Yum! :D ).
Steve Jobs really must have been embarassed after claiming we'd have 3 ghz when we still can't even pass 2.7 ghz without a huge unstable liquid cooling system. Maybe Intel will bring us 3 ghz next month, a quad 3 ghz Xeon, does that even exist?
My problem with having 4 cores at 2.6 ghz is what will the other Mac Pro's offer? One more month...
DStaal
Jul 20, 09:33 AM
...Quad Duo?
...Quadra Duo?
...the "holy hell this is faster than you'll ever need" Mac? :D
If it can't model WW2 D-Day in full holographic 3D, with AI ground troops, AI generals, real physics and weather effects I garuntee you there will be people asking for more power.
(Now, doesn't that sound like a sweet game? :) )
...Quadra Duo?
...the "holy hell this is faster than you'll ever need" Mac? :D
If it can't model WW2 D-Day in full holographic 3D, with AI ground troops, AI generals, real physics and weather effects I garuntee you there will be people asking for more power.
(Now, doesn't that sound like a sweet game? :) )
bilbo--baggins
Nov 29, 07:33 AM
When Apple have done so much to counter piracy (introducing legal paid-for downloads, music files that cannot be re-distributed freely, generally raising awareness that music piracy is illegal) I hope that they aren't dooped into agreeing a royalty fee on iPods.
Ultimately those of us that buy our music legitimately will be paying for those that pirate music (or the music companies go out of business, which isn't going to happen), but for Apple to agree to pay royalties on iPods would be admitting that the iPod helps/encourages people to pirate music.
There is nothing we can do about it, but it would annoy me just as a matter of principle.
Ultimately those of us that buy our music legitimately will be paying for those that pirate music (or the music companies go out of business, which isn't going to happen), but for Apple to agree to pay royalties on iPods would be admitting that the iPod helps/encourages people to pirate music.
There is nothing we can do about it, but it would annoy me just as a matter of principle.
zoran
Oct 15, 01:05 PM
How long did macPro delay compared to HPs similar workstation?
hagjohn
Sep 19, 06:02 AM
Many users have pointed to extended ship dates and delays for MacBooks as evidence of an impending update. While possible, the shipping delays may simply be due to a demand backlog which was noted (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1896) in Apple's Q3 2006 conference call in July. At the time Apple stated they expected to reach a supply/demand balance by the end of September (the end of Apple's current fiscal quarter).
I hope they are wrong... I doubt that the same chip will be used in both Macbook and Macbook pro's. If they have been building up supply since the release, I would think they would have enough by now.
I hope they are wrong... I doubt that the same chip will be used in both Macbook and Macbook pro's. If they have been building up supply since the release, I would think they would have enough by now.
LegendKillerUK
Apr 6, 10:40 AM
"integrated graphics"... "good enough" LOL... I think I'll keep my current-gen 13" MBA. I didn't buy the world's most expensive netbook for "good enough".
You are aware the nvidia graphics in your current one are also integrated?
You are aware the nvidia graphics in your current one are also integrated?
glassbathroom
Aug 17, 08:13 AM
Edit: Please ignore this post, I can't count!!!
If you buy a Xeon 5160 (3.0GHz) at the moment they are £570. Apple are charging £530 to upgrade from Xeon 5150 (2.66GHz) to the Xeon 5160. Bearing in mind that you can probably sell the original 2.66Gz chip for around £300, it would be cheaper to buy the lower spec Mac Pro and upgrade yourself.
Forgive the £ for those that think in $.
If you buy a Xeon 5160 (3.0GHz) at the moment they are £570. Apple are charging £530 to upgrade from Xeon 5150 (2.66GHz) to the Xeon 5160. Bearing in mind that you can probably sell the original 2.66Gz chip for around £300, it would be cheaper to buy the lower spec Mac Pro and upgrade yourself.
Forgive the £ for those that think in $.
dclocke
Sep 19, 08:24 AM
That isn't exactly what I said, I don't have a problem with people discussing new and upcoming products and features and when we might see them. Count me in.
Its the people that are getting so worked up, annoyed at Apple, threatening to dump the platform and move to Windows, claiming Apple are three months behind Windows systems and generally bitching.
Its all pointless as the same people will start up again with the next technology advances as soon as the Macbook range is updated with Merom.
There's something to be said for that. I apologize if I misunderstood your post...
Its the people that are getting so worked up, annoyed at Apple, threatening to dump the platform and move to Windows, claiming Apple are three months behind Windows systems and generally bitching.
Its all pointless as the same people will start up again with the next technology advances as soon as the Macbook range is updated with Merom.
There's something to be said for that. I apologize if I misunderstood your post...
backdraft
Aug 26, 02:49 PM
Call it what you want but these new MacBooks are crap. Yea there is people who are enjoying theirs without a hitch but look at all the reports of problems. Not once on this forum have we had a flood of problems with a single unit. Apple dropped the ball on this one. Poorly made unit
Apple is now getting their parts from the same bin that PC makers use. Intel = cheap parts. Cheap parts = low quality.
Same thing with the batteries....
OS X can run on PPC and X86. Apple should target X86 to consumers and PPC for pro's.
That $100 million that Apple just wasted on Creative could have meant new supercooled mobile G5's if it would have been pumped into IBM (Power.org). Instead we have these halfbaked Wintel parts to deal with MUCH fewer problems with PowerPC based Mac's.
http://www.appledefects.com/?cat=6
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=MacBook_Pro
Apple is now getting their parts from the same bin that PC makers use. Intel = cheap parts. Cheap parts = low quality.
Same thing with the batteries....
OS X can run on PPC and X86. Apple should target X86 to consumers and PPC for pro's.
That $100 million that Apple just wasted on Creative could have meant new supercooled mobile G5's if it would have been pumped into IBM (Power.org). Instead we have these halfbaked Wintel parts to deal with MUCH fewer problems with PowerPC based Mac's.
http://www.appledefects.com/?cat=6
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=MacBook_Pro
VanNess
Aug 5, 05:52 PM
As far as I'm concerned, my interest in WWDC rumor mongering is closed. Now that we're in the final weekend, there's too much potential for bogus, wild info from anonymous but suddenly "in the know" sources that will get a kick out seeing false info entertained in sites like this.
Insofar as all of the present rumors/claims combined, there just isn't enough there to justify the amount of "to be announced" sessions for developers that are on the WWDC event schedule, and it isn't likely they are Intel/Universal Binary-related (that particular cat is obviously already out of the bag), so at this point I have no idea what Leopard will bring. All bets are still off.
And what's this nonsense from Thinksecret?
A release date for Leopard is not expected at WWDC and it appears unlikely that the operating system will ship by the close of based on its current development status, sources say.
Well, they certainly aren't going to give an exact day and time of release, but you don't have to be "in the know" to understand that they are going to give a time frame for it's release (i.e., first quarter 07 or first half 07), as they typically do. Common sense tells you that. What's Jobs supposed to say? "Oh, I don't know. Not sure when we are going to release it. But we'll definitely get around to it one of these days."
My guess is that it won't happen until 07, about the same time frame Tiger was released. Although Apple may finish it's hardware transition for the present generation of machines come Monday, Universal Binaries are still very much in progress. Throwing in major new OS changes, new API's etc., courtesy of Leopard on top of the existing Universal Binary transition efforts isn't likely to sit well with developers if the release date for Leopard is too soon - as in by the end of the year. Risks developers either throttling back on UB support or support for whatever goodies that are new in Leopard. And by the looks of the number of yet to be announced sessions at WWDC, there may quite a number of new goodies.
With Microsoft's Vista constantly trying to steer it's way out of oblivion, in this case time is on Apple's side.
Insofar as all of the present rumors/claims combined, there just isn't enough there to justify the amount of "to be announced" sessions for developers that are on the WWDC event schedule, and it isn't likely they are Intel/Universal Binary-related (that particular cat is obviously already out of the bag), so at this point I have no idea what Leopard will bring. All bets are still off.
And what's this nonsense from Thinksecret?
A release date for Leopard is not expected at WWDC and it appears unlikely that the operating system will ship by the close of based on its current development status, sources say.
Well, they certainly aren't going to give an exact day and time of release, but you don't have to be "in the know" to understand that they are going to give a time frame for it's release (i.e., first quarter 07 or first half 07), as they typically do. Common sense tells you that. What's Jobs supposed to say? "Oh, I don't know. Not sure when we are going to release it. But we'll definitely get around to it one of these days."
My guess is that it won't happen until 07, about the same time frame Tiger was released. Although Apple may finish it's hardware transition for the present generation of machines come Monday, Universal Binaries are still very much in progress. Throwing in major new OS changes, new API's etc., courtesy of Leopard on top of the existing Universal Binary transition efforts isn't likely to sit well with developers if the release date for Leopard is too soon - as in by the end of the year. Risks developers either throttling back on UB support or support for whatever goodies that are new in Leopard. And by the looks of the number of yet to be announced sessions at WWDC, there may quite a number of new goodies.
With Microsoft's Vista constantly trying to steer it's way out of oblivion, in this case time is on Apple's side.
TangoCharlie
Jul 20, 11:40 AM
I have a question.
If Kentsfield is a relation of the Conroe part (ie. Core 2 Duo) then will it be capable of being configured in a pair to create a "octo" core machine?
Surely that will require a Xeon class processor (like a quad version of the Woodcrest)?
edit: quad version of Woodcrest is Clovertown.
Intel has for the last few years restricted the "destop" parts to single socket systems. ** If Intel continues along these lines, then Kentsfield will also be restricted to single socket systems (ie a maximum of 4 cores).
Cloverton, being the "Xeon" equivalent will support multi-socket systems, taking us to the quoted 8 cores for dual-cpu systems.
====
**The Pentium III S was the last "desktop" CPU which could be used in a dual cpu configuration. P4's were always "crippled" to work only in single-cpu systems.
If Kentsfield is a relation of the Conroe part (ie. Core 2 Duo) then will it be capable of being configured in a pair to create a "octo" core machine?
Surely that will require a Xeon class processor (like a quad version of the Woodcrest)?
edit: quad version of Woodcrest is Clovertown.
Intel has for the last few years restricted the "destop" parts to single socket systems. ** If Intel continues along these lines, then Kentsfield will also be restricted to single socket systems (ie a maximum of 4 cores).
Cloverton, being the "Xeon" equivalent will support multi-socket systems, taking us to the quoted 8 cores for dual-cpu systems.
====
**The Pentium III S was the last "desktop" CPU which could be used in a dual cpu configuration. P4's were always "crippled" to work only in single-cpu systems.
No comments:
Post a Comment