BaldiMac
Apr 6, 04:08 PM
That's why Apple lost around 30% marketshare in less than two months when the Galaxy tab was released? You know: That's the tablet that runs an outdated phone OS and not even a tablet OS...
That didn't actually happen.
That didn't actually happen.
cmaier
Apr 20, 02:52 PM
Apple filed similar suits again HTC and Nokia last spring. You'll notice that the ITC is not favoring Apple's claims.
The suits aren't very similar at all.
The suits aren't very similar at all.
amols
Aug 5, 11:26 PM
No Macbook Pros?? I hope there won't be any. My MBP gets to stay top of the line for few more weeks ;) . Besides, and correct me if I'm wrong, but when was the last time that any notebook was mere updated at WWDC ??
Multimedia
Aug 26, 11:54 PM
Expect new Merom-based macs, and a new iPod, on September 18th.Please Sustantiate Your Reasoning Why You Think September 18th. :confused: Three more weeks of anxiety ridden torture! :eek:
amin
Aug 19, 09:42 AM
You make good points. I guess we'll learn more as more information becomes available.
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
cloudnine
Nov 28, 07:27 PM
"It would be a nice idea."
What does that mean? I have lots of nice ideas for getting money when I didn't do anything.
By this logic, shouldn't Universal also get royalties for every CD player, Cassette player, and radio sold?
Might as well cash in on the giant cash cow that is the iPod :rolleyes:
My thoughts exactly... "oh, well this ipod thing plays music and it's the best mp3 player out there... how can we get this to benefit us for absolutely no reason?"
asinine.
What does that mean? I have lots of nice ideas for getting money when I didn't do anything.
By this logic, shouldn't Universal also get royalties for every CD player, Cassette player, and radio sold?
Might as well cash in on the giant cash cow that is the iPod :rolleyes:
My thoughts exactly... "oh, well this ipod thing plays music and it's the best mp3 player out there... how can we get this to benefit us for absolutely no reason?"
asinine.
DeathChill
Apr 7, 10:29 PM
me too! I wanna learn!
How does withholding stock from the public aid a company? I can imagine holding them till everything is registered in their system and accounted for. But turning people away when they actually do have stock doesn't sound like a good business practice to me
I read over at TechCrunch that it was to meet daily sales quotas, which is to benefit the store manager, mostly. They look better for hitting/beating their quota everyday, regardless of whether or not it is actually at all helpful to Best Buy.
How does withholding stock from the public aid a company? I can imagine holding them till everything is registered in their system and accounted for. But turning people away when they actually do have stock doesn't sound like a good business practice to me
I read over at TechCrunch that it was to meet daily sales quotas, which is to benefit the store manager, mostly. They look better for hitting/beating their quota everyday, regardless of whether or not it is actually at all helpful to Best Buy.
Kevin Monahan
Apr 6, 02:20 PM
Unless you have an extreme PC...Adobe makes no sense (unless you are using the Quadro nVidia cards in a Mac Pro). Sure, the Merc engine increases performance for a few transitions and filters....but rendering is still necessary in MOST cases!
Premiere Pro makes sense in a lot of cases for Mac users. It makes the most sense for After Effects artists, like yourself, as you can dynamic link directly to After Effects from the Premiere Pro timeline. As you pointed out, Macs work great with Premiere Pro and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 card. More and more cards are being supported as time moves forward. Want a certain card to add Mercury Playback engine hardware acceleration? Make a request here: http://www.adobe.com/go/wish
Not sure what you mean by "unless you have an extreme PC, Adobe makes no sense?" Yes, you need more RAM and a decent NVIDIA card to make Premiere Pro really fly on a PC-it's a 64 bit application-but even modest PCs do just fine with Premiere Pro. If Apple puts out a 64 bit application, you can bet that you should be looking at upgrading your Mac with a lot more RAM, more cores on the GPU, etc., as well. Need more info on tuning your system with Premiere Pro? Watch this: http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-premiere-pro-cs5/optimize-a-computer-for-mercury-playback-engine/
You wrote that rendering is still necessary in most cases. Really? What kind of system are you on? I've never had to render, even on my '09 MacBook Pro with no NVIDIA card and the Mercury Playback Engine in software mode.
You say that CUDA accelerates only a "few" video filters and transitions? There are a lot more than that! Upgrade to Premiere Pro 5.0.3 and you'll see the following GPU accelerated effects:
- Alpha Adjust
- Basic 3D
- Black & White
- Brightness & Contrast
- Color Balance (RGB)
- Color Pass
- Color Replace
- Crop
- Drop Shadow
- Extract
- Fast Color Corrector
- Feather Edges
- Gamma Correction
- Garbage Matte (4, 8, 16)
- Gaussian Blur
- Horizontal Flip
- Levels
- Luma Corrector
- Luma Curve
- Noise
- Proc Amp
- RGB Curves
- RGB Color Corrector
- Sharpen
- Three-way Color Corrector
- Timecode
- Tint
- Track Matte
- Ultra Keyer
- Video Limiter
- Vertical Flip
I Love Lucy Pink Tote Bag
I Love Lucy
shows was I Love Lucy.
Bonus Bucks - I Love Lucy
I-Love-Lucy-1
Lucille Ball and I Love Lucy
i love lucy heart.
YOUNG PHOTO I LOVE LUCY
I Love Lucy, Lucille Ball,
Lucille Ball
I Love Lucy - The Complete 7-9
Premiere Pro makes sense in a lot of cases for Mac users. It makes the most sense for After Effects artists, like yourself, as you can dynamic link directly to After Effects from the Premiere Pro timeline. As you pointed out, Macs work great with Premiere Pro and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 card. More and more cards are being supported as time moves forward. Want a certain card to add Mercury Playback engine hardware acceleration? Make a request here: http://www.adobe.com/go/wish
Not sure what you mean by "unless you have an extreme PC, Adobe makes no sense?" Yes, you need more RAM and a decent NVIDIA card to make Premiere Pro really fly on a PC-it's a 64 bit application-but even modest PCs do just fine with Premiere Pro. If Apple puts out a 64 bit application, you can bet that you should be looking at upgrading your Mac with a lot more RAM, more cores on the GPU, etc., as well. Need more info on tuning your system with Premiere Pro? Watch this: http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-premiere-pro-cs5/optimize-a-computer-for-mercury-playback-engine/
You wrote that rendering is still necessary in most cases. Really? What kind of system are you on? I've never had to render, even on my '09 MacBook Pro with no NVIDIA card and the Mercury Playback Engine in software mode.
You say that CUDA accelerates only a "few" video filters and transitions? There are a lot more than that! Upgrade to Premiere Pro 5.0.3 and you'll see the following GPU accelerated effects:
- Alpha Adjust
- Basic 3D
- Black & White
- Brightness & Contrast
- Color Balance (RGB)
- Color Pass
- Color Replace
- Crop
- Drop Shadow
- Extract
- Fast Color Corrector
- Feather Edges
- Gamma Correction
- Garbage Matte (4, 8, 16)
- Gaussian Blur
- Horizontal Flip
- Levels
- Luma Corrector
- Luma Curve
- Noise
- Proc Amp
- RGB Curves
- RGB Color Corrector
- Sharpen
- Three-way Color Corrector
- Timecode
- Tint
- Track Matte
- Ultra Keyer
- Video Limiter
- Vertical Flip
dethmaShine
Apr 19, 03:02 PM
That's US mobile subscribers marketshare for Jan and Feb '11. My numbers are worldwide smartphone marketshare. Completly different things.
Well if I can understand that:
1. US mobile subscriber marketshare is US smartphone marketshare & Worldwide smartphone marketshare is World wide smartphone marketshare.
2. You never specified which marketshare you were talking about.
Well if I can understand that:
1. US mobile subscriber marketshare is US smartphone marketshare & Worldwide smartphone marketshare is World wide smartphone marketshare.
2. You never specified which marketshare you were talking about.
Willis
Jul 27, 03:58 PM
It's always a little alarming when a post starts "sorry if I missed it but..."
The 2.7 G5 will be the highest clocked chip in a mac for a while, but probably not the fastest. In a number of benchmarks, Yonah has already beaten dual G5's, the conroes and woodrests will likely widen the gap even more.
true.... didnt the Macbook outrun a G5 in final cut studio or something?
The 2.7 G5 will be the highest clocked chip in a mac for a while, but probably not the fastest. In a number of benchmarks, Yonah has already beaten dual G5's, the conroes and woodrests will likely widen the gap even more.
true.... didnt the Macbook outrun a G5 in final cut studio or something?
RussOniPhone
Apr 6, 01:15 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Does this mean I should cancel my order on the 11" Mac Book Air 1.4GZ, I got it with 4GB ram and it's a refurb so I saved some cash. Should I wait until June.
Thanks in advance for your advise!!
Does this mean I should cancel my order on the 11" Mac Book Air 1.4GZ, I got it with 4GB ram and it's a refurb so I saved some cash. Should I wait until June.
Thanks in advance for your advise!!
maclaptop
Apr 12, 11:03 PM
The sheer amount of people posting here, saying they're moving from iPhone if the new model is delayed significantly is quite telling really.
We're a community that thrives on tech news, but the average joe doesn't care and if his/her contract is up dior renewal between June and the release date and there's no new iPhone to fill that void, chances are they AREN'T going to hang around for iPhone 5.
I've had iPhones on the 'odd numbered cycles' (ie. 1 and 3) and I really am thinking of switching. I don't want the hassle of having to wait 2/3/4/however many months. Call me fickle, or having no patience, but MY OPINION is that Apple just isn't keeping up with competition.
As much as I like Apple products, I believe you have some very valid points. My iPhone 4 is a good phone, but its not Apples best work. Its well documented that the engineers discovered the antenna fault well in advance of launch, advised Steve Jobs and he waived it off, ignoring them. Its that cavalier attitude that will at some point come back and bite them.
Yet Steve has cultivated a massive cadre of followers that will live in defense and denial, while worshipping his every move. They have closed their minds to anything outside of Apples walled garden. I can see how attractive they find it, simple and easy.
That said the choices like Android are the very reason our free enterprise system works so well. If the Google OS was as bad as it's made out to be in this forum, I can assure you there would not be the thousands of posts about it, that appear in this forum.
Viva Le Choice
We're a community that thrives on tech news, but the average joe doesn't care and if his/her contract is up dior renewal between June and the release date and there's no new iPhone to fill that void, chances are they AREN'T going to hang around for iPhone 5.
I've had iPhones on the 'odd numbered cycles' (ie. 1 and 3) and I really am thinking of switching. I don't want the hassle of having to wait 2/3/4/however many months. Call me fickle, or having no patience, but MY OPINION is that Apple just isn't keeping up with competition.
As much as I like Apple products, I believe you have some very valid points. My iPhone 4 is a good phone, but its not Apples best work. Its well documented that the engineers discovered the antenna fault well in advance of launch, advised Steve Jobs and he waived it off, ignoring them. Its that cavalier attitude that will at some point come back and bite them.
Yet Steve has cultivated a massive cadre of followers that will live in defense and denial, while worshipping his every move. They have closed their minds to anything outside of Apples walled garden. I can see how attractive they find it, simple and easy.
That said the choices like Android are the very reason our free enterprise system works so well. If the Google OS was as bad as it's made out to be in this forum, I can assure you there would not be the thousands of posts about it, that appear in this forum.
Viva Le Choice
Lotso
Apr 11, 01:03 PM
Analysts can just shove it. Complete BS all over the place. So.. according to them, we're going to have OSX Lion, iOS5, iPhone5, new iPods AND iPad 3... ALL IN THE FALL?! Complete bull. Oh, and throw in macbook pro updates for the later part of the fall, as usual. Just think about that for a second.
Now, let me remember, when was the last time they were wrong.. oh wait, that's right, iPad 2. Last I remember, it was, you won't see it till May/June at the earliest. WRONG. And after analysts vs. bloggers report, it seems bloggers are more right than analysts.
Anyways, after the 1st paragraph I wrote, I have no doubt in my mind that this is impossible. Last time Apple tried something like this, if I recall, it was Mobile Me, iPhone 3G + iOS2. It was a mess. Jobs himself said it was a mistake (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10006873-93.html) they'll never make again. So, when thinking about everything that is rumored by analysts to be coming out this fall, yeah, don't think so.:rolleyes:
Edit: Don't get me started on how much their sales would be and strain on supplies having a huge item (iPhone) not only just going on sale, but going on sale leading into holiday season. That's 2x the demand of just releasing during the summer, and we all know how much of a demand that causes.
And going to the guy who said iPhone 3 brought 3GS, what the heck is that? There is 3G, no 3GS (technology wise). It's only a naming convention apple used. Like when cars use SE or GLS. All the did was add a camera, and maybe something else hardware wise.
Edit 2: ipad 2 entered production 1 month b4 apple announcing, so no freak'n 3 months as I've heard around rumor sites.
Thank you! Finally some sense. Any so called "analyst" would be an idiot to claim that Apple will be releasing that many products all within the fall.
You are a much better analyst than the guy from Avian Securities. Arn should make a post saying, "Macrumors forum analyst drewyboy claims the iPhone 5 will launch right on schedule."
Now, let me remember, when was the last time they were wrong.. oh wait, that's right, iPad 2. Last I remember, it was, you won't see it till May/June at the earliest. WRONG. And after analysts vs. bloggers report, it seems bloggers are more right than analysts.
Anyways, after the 1st paragraph I wrote, I have no doubt in my mind that this is impossible. Last time Apple tried something like this, if I recall, it was Mobile Me, iPhone 3G + iOS2. It was a mess. Jobs himself said it was a mistake (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10006873-93.html) they'll never make again. So, when thinking about everything that is rumored by analysts to be coming out this fall, yeah, don't think so.:rolleyes:
Edit: Don't get me started on how much their sales would be and strain on supplies having a huge item (iPhone) not only just going on sale, but going on sale leading into holiday season. That's 2x the demand of just releasing during the summer, and we all know how much of a demand that causes.
And going to the guy who said iPhone 3 brought 3GS, what the heck is that? There is 3G, no 3GS (technology wise). It's only a naming convention apple used. Like when cars use SE or GLS. All the did was add a camera, and maybe something else hardware wise.
Edit 2: ipad 2 entered production 1 month b4 apple announcing, so no freak'n 3 months as I've heard around rumor sites.
Thank you! Finally some sense. Any so called "analyst" would be an idiot to claim that Apple will be releasing that many products all within the fall.
You are a much better analyst than the guy from Avian Securities. Arn should make a post saying, "Macrumors forum analyst drewyboy claims the iPhone 5 will launch right on schedule."
Alx9876
Apr 6, 01:27 PM
What a joke of a tablet. Nothing but a piece of crap.
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.
OSXconvert
Aug 17, 03:32 PM
It will be exactly 25% faster in UB photoshop. How do I know? I tested in photoshop 7.01 in OS X and in XP on the mac pro. XP test was 25% faster. There you go.
Macenforcer, that's a good estimate based on PS7, but we have no idea how much Adobe will optimize the code in CS3.
The thing that makes the Mac vs PC battle so interesting now is that the hardware is essentially the same. So the differences will come down to the hardware drivers and the software and OS optimizations. Though I'd love to see Adobe preferentially optimize the UB code for CS3, I doubt they will financially risk it being much better than Windows. As much as I love the OSX interface better than Windows, I suspect that the deeper pockets of Microsoft will be able to ensure that Vista and CS3 remain neck and neck competitive if not superior in pure performance to Leopard and CS3. Before, when Apple had Motorola's and IBM's chips, things like vector processing speed shone on the Mac, but now the playing field is totally level.
Though it was a smart move to increase marketshare when Apple switched to Intel, it may actually hurt the high-end pro market because all pro machines will be running on the best Intel processors. Choosing, say AMD, over Intel might have been a wiser choice: Apple would have gotten PC compatibility with the possibility of increased performance or Mac customization which would have made the pro machines really scream compared to Windows.
From now on, whatever processor Apple has, Windows has, and the differences will come down mostly on the OS. I do have to tip my hat to Apple for developing BootCamp, because now we as Apple users get the best of both worlds.
Macenforcer, that's a good estimate based on PS7, but we have no idea how much Adobe will optimize the code in CS3.
The thing that makes the Mac vs PC battle so interesting now is that the hardware is essentially the same. So the differences will come down to the hardware drivers and the software and OS optimizations. Though I'd love to see Adobe preferentially optimize the UB code for CS3, I doubt they will financially risk it being much better than Windows. As much as I love the OSX interface better than Windows, I suspect that the deeper pockets of Microsoft will be able to ensure that Vista and CS3 remain neck and neck competitive if not superior in pure performance to Leopard and CS3. Before, when Apple had Motorola's and IBM's chips, things like vector processing speed shone on the Mac, but now the playing field is totally level.
Though it was a smart move to increase marketshare when Apple switched to Intel, it may actually hurt the high-end pro market because all pro machines will be running on the best Intel processors. Choosing, say AMD, over Intel might have been a wiser choice: Apple would have gotten PC compatibility with the possibility of increased performance or Mac customization which would have made the pro machines really scream compared to Windows.
From now on, whatever processor Apple has, Windows has, and the differences will come down mostly on the OS. I do have to tip my hat to Apple for developing BootCamp, because now we as Apple users get the best of both worlds.
nvbrit
Apr 25, 02:01 PM
What I don't understand is even if Apple is tracking us, why did Steve Jobs simply lie about the claims, thats whats fishy about all this..
he didn't lie, Apple isn't tracking people, because the information doesn't get sent to Apple so his response was correct and truthful.
he didn't lie, Apple isn't tracking people, because the information doesn't get sent to Apple so his response was correct and truthful.
puckhead193
Aug 26, 09:57 PM
god i hope new iMacs are coming out on tues. My butt will be at an apple store placing the order in 5 seconds... well not literally i'll wait till the weekend, but still.... i want an iMac...the mac pro is way to big for my college dorm (i think)
KnightWRX
Mar 22, 12:59 PM
I agree.
But who in their right minds would want to own something called a Playbook? :o
Coaches all over the world. You know, to replace their paper Playbooks. ;)
But who in their right minds would want to own something called a Playbook? :o
Coaches all over the world. You know, to replace their paper Playbooks. ;)
mdriftmeyer
Aug 26, 06:18 AM
Manufacturing observation:
Back in 1996 every major manufacturer did most of its assembly in the U.S. or Western Europe.
Take a guess where it mainly resides now?
People want a $1000 laptop/notebook. Back in 1996 they'd be lucky to get an DX4/100 Intel PC for $1000 by Digital, HP, Compaq, etc.
Check this old message group Email about the Alpha Processor (Then cutting edge)
http://www.xent.com/summer96/0060.html
If you think offloading manufacturing/assembly to third world countries for pennies on the dollar only gives us cheap and powerful computer to use then you really miss the boat on QA.
You aren't going to get systems for basement prices that include Workstation reliable parts, assembly and longevity from anyone.
Battery flaws that SONY has are affecting many in the industry.
Motherboard designs for these new generation chips will always produce flaws.
Second revision rule of thumb.
When you go and buy a car do you buy the first year of a new model? Or do you wait a year or two?
The Auto Industry has been building cars for over 100 years and they still get horrendous recalls.
Get used to the disposable society. From Blenders, to hairdryers/coffee makers, to major tool manufacturers the days of buy and use for a decade or more cost major bucks and the low end, plastic encased models are tested for failure time frames.
This business market is driving people to purchase every twelve or less months.
I'm still going to wait on revision B of the Mac Pro. I've got more than one operating system/hardware combo and I won't die without the Mac Pro.
Back in 1996 every major manufacturer did most of its assembly in the U.S. or Western Europe.
Take a guess where it mainly resides now?
People want a $1000 laptop/notebook. Back in 1996 they'd be lucky to get an DX4/100 Intel PC for $1000 by Digital, HP, Compaq, etc.
Check this old message group Email about the Alpha Processor (Then cutting edge)
http://www.xent.com/summer96/0060.html
If you think offloading manufacturing/assembly to third world countries for pennies on the dollar only gives us cheap and powerful computer to use then you really miss the boat on QA.
You aren't going to get systems for basement prices that include Workstation reliable parts, assembly and longevity from anyone.
Battery flaws that SONY has are affecting many in the industry.
Motherboard designs for these new generation chips will always produce flaws.
Second revision rule of thumb.
When you go and buy a car do you buy the first year of a new model? Or do you wait a year or two?
The Auto Industry has been building cars for over 100 years and they still get horrendous recalls.
Get used to the disposable society. From Blenders, to hairdryers/coffee makers, to major tool manufacturers the days of buy and use for a decade or more cost major bucks and the low end, plastic encased models are tested for failure time frames.
This business market is driving people to purchase every twelve or less months.
I'm still going to wait on revision B of the Mac Pro. I've got more than one operating system/hardware combo and I won't die without the Mac Pro.
JeffDM
Sep 16, 04:39 PM
You are right. However, you try to tell consumers "Well we are moving to 2.4Ghz chips" after you just had 2.66Ghz and 3.0Ghz chips. It isnt going to work.
If today, Dell decided to move there whole line back to 1Ghz processors, nobody would buy. Unfortunetly the Ghz myth is a strong as its ever been. Taking a step backward is not an option.
It's already happened, just not in as a melodramatic way as you suggest (back to 1GHz? geez). AMD took a small step back, Hz wise when they introduced dual core, though it still advanced their "+" processor ratings I suppose that few noticed the actual clock reduction. Intel took a major step back Hz wise between Netburst and Core 2. The 5000 and 5100 series Xeon CPUs demonstrate this, you can get a Dell precision 690 with 3.73GHz Netburst based chips or the same 690 with 3.0GHz Core2 based chips.
So I don't think that a quad core Xeon running at 2.66GHz is going to be hurt too much in comparison to a dual core 3.0GHz, it's still a much more powerful processor.
Didn't you get the memo, PowerPC is dead. WTF does that have to do with anything? Do you just have this Pavlovian response to the word "Hyperthreading"?
PPC isn't dead, it's just not in new desktops anymore. IBM is making them (or at least co-designed them) for all the next generation game consoles and a lot of huge supercomputers.
If today, Dell decided to move there whole line back to 1Ghz processors, nobody would buy. Unfortunetly the Ghz myth is a strong as its ever been. Taking a step backward is not an option.
It's already happened, just not in as a melodramatic way as you suggest (back to 1GHz? geez). AMD took a small step back, Hz wise when they introduced dual core, though it still advanced their "+" processor ratings I suppose that few noticed the actual clock reduction. Intel took a major step back Hz wise between Netburst and Core 2. The 5000 and 5100 series Xeon CPUs demonstrate this, you can get a Dell precision 690 with 3.73GHz Netburst based chips or the same 690 with 3.0GHz Core2 based chips.
So I don't think that a quad core Xeon running at 2.66GHz is going to be hurt too much in comparison to a dual core 3.0GHz, it's still a much more powerful processor.
Didn't you get the memo, PowerPC is dead. WTF does that have to do with anything? Do you just have this Pavlovian response to the word "Hyperthreading"?
PPC isn't dead, it's just not in new desktops anymore. IBM is making them (or at least co-designed them) for all the next generation game consoles and a lot of huge supercomputers.
sth
Apr 12, 02:24 PM
Any news about what time the presentation will be?
NATO
Nov 28, 06:58 PM
I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that microsoft suggested it in the first place to universal.
So they say.... :rolleyes:
So they say.... :rolleyes:
jmgregory1
Mar 22, 04:01 PM
I can assure that doubling the 256MB of the first iPad is not enough for people that need a lot of multitask, like me.
I don't need to own an iPad 2.
The competitors have 1GB RAM, iPad 2 has 512MB.
It's simple: Apple is always behind hardware-wise because they like to priorize esthetics and appearance (besides the "so wonderful OS" ad). It's been this way for Macs, it seems to be the same way for iPads.
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
iPhone has started a market, competitors are improving it.
iPad has started a market, competitors are improving it.
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
People said that the iPhone was going to be the best phone out there, but the market is showing something different.
People say the iPad is the best tablet out there, but it seems that the market is going to show something different.
There are 2 sides: Apple fanboys and realistic people.
I like products, not brands.
This is a simple look at a complex process. Adding more ram may be good in a system that doesn't control app usage well, but it's something completely different when the system can control for app processes. If you have a product that works perfectly well with a certain spec, is there a need to add more of a certain thing? What benefit does it offer? Apple is a smart company - why build more cost into hardware if you can make your software make up any potential shortcomings in hardware?
Of course the competition has to market its products as being different in some way compared to Apple and convince you, the buying public, that it means something to have double this or less of that.
Frankly, I think these companies should be trying to come up with the next thing - instead of just trying to compete against the iPad - but they won't do that. They'll wait until Apple releases the next new thing and just copy that. It's pitiful really.
I don't need to own an iPad 2.
The competitors have 1GB RAM, iPad 2 has 512MB.
It's simple: Apple is always behind hardware-wise because they like to priorize esthetics and appearance (besides the "so wonderful OS" ad). It's been this way for Macs, it seems to be the same way for iPads.
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
iPhone has started a market, competitors are improving it.
iPad has started a market, competitors are improving it.
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
People said that the iPhone was going to be the best phone out there, but the market is showing something different.
People say the iPad is the best tablet out there, but it seems that the market is going to show something different.
There are 2 sides: Apple fanboys and realistic people.
I like products, not brands.
This is a simple look at a complex process. Adding more ram may be good in a system that doesn't control app usage well, but it's something completely different when the system can control for app processes. If you have a product that works perfectly well with a certain spec, is there a need to add more of a certain thing? What benefit does it offer? Apple is a smart company - why build more cost into hardware if you can make your software make up any potential shortcomings in hardware?
Of course the competition has to market its products as being different in some way compared to Apple and convince you, the buying public, that it means something to have double this or less of that.
Frankly, I think these companies should be trying to come up with the next thing - instead of just trying to compete against the iPad - but they won't do that. They'll wait until Apple releases the next new thing and just copy that. It's pitiful really.