~Shard~
Nov 15, 08:51 AM
This is very cool, however I think the article says it all:
"unless you do work normally relegated to high-end workstations, perform massively multitasking workloads, or just want the bragging rights, eight cores is definitely overkill...at least for now."
Of course at some point 8-cores will be the standard and will be slow compared to the 32-core systems, but until that happens, I think quad-core would suit me just fine. Hell, I'm getting by with a single core G4 right now with no complaints, so this isn't a big deal for me in the grand scheme of things! ;) :cool:
"unless you do work normally relegated to high-end workstations, perform massively multitasking workloads, or just want the bragging rights, eight cores is definitely overkill...at least for now."
Of course at some point 8-cores will be the standard and will be slow compared to the 32-core systems, but until that happens, I think quad-core would suit me just fine. Hell, I'm getting by with a single core G4 right now with no complaints, so this isn't a big deal for me in the grand scheme of things! ;) :cool:
takao
Feb 28, 07:59 AM
I currently have a 4.7L V8 Dodge Dakota. I'd buy a diesel version of it in a heartbeat. I could still get the power/hauling ability needed but have the mileage to justify having the pickup.
But now with the possibility of having $5/gal gas looming, the 18 HWY MPG may force my hand.
i just looked up the torque on the new 4.7 v8: 446nm ... compared to this thread Chevrolet Cruze 2011 new diesel with 360nm from a 2.0 I4 ... no wonder you would want a diesel for pulling ;) (the 3.7 v6 entry engine only produced 319 nm of torque ... in a truck heavier than the moon)
that the US car makers still sells trucks, pickups etc. without diesel options is simply a complete lack of any common sense. diesel engines are practically made to be perfect for pulling and towing in commercial vehicles
for it's south american Amarok pick up VW simply took the 2.0 I4 TDI from the golf/jetta and set up the engine slightly different in regards to the power/torque band and ends up with an engine which was very likely cheaper to develop, cheaper to build had less weight and still achieves 400nm of torque
But now with the possibility of having $5/gal gas looming, the 18 HWY MPG may force my hand.
i just looked up the torque on the new 4.7 v8: 446nm ... compared to this thread Chevrolet Cruze 2011 new diesel with 360nm from a 2.0 I4 ... no wonder you would want a diesel for pulling ;) (the 3.7 v6 entry engine only produced 319 nm of torque ... in a truck heavier than the moon)
that the US car makers still sells trucks, pickups etc. without diesel options is simply a complete lack of any common sense. diesel engines are practically made to be perfect for pulling and towing in commercial vehicles
for it's south american Amarok pick up VW simply took the 2.0 I4 TDI from the golf/jetta and set up the engine slightly different in regards to the power/torque band and ends up with an engine which was very likely cheaper to develop, cheaper to build had less weight and still achieves 400nm of torque
strabes
Apr 2, 07:15 PM
"Technology gets out of the way"
That's why I got a Mac/iPhone in the first place. Get out of my way, Windows/Android!
That's why I got a Mac/iPhone in the first place. Get out of my way, Windows/Android!
Sky Blue
Jan 11, 04:54 PM
Sounds like a shoe.
bretm
Sep 7, 10:16 AM
Netflix is made for movies! I love Apple but they'll never do for movies what Netflix has! In the past 5 weeks, I've had 21 movies delivered to my door. I'm on the 3-at-a-time plan (unlimited for $17.99/mo). Also, I can buy tons of used DVDs for $5.99 that are 100% guaranteed!
I think a dollar a song is one thing because you can pick and choose from an album so the trade-off for quality is justified. However, $9.99 is a lot to ask for something that is very low quality, only looks really good an a 2" screen and takes a long time to download. Right now, we don't even know if you can back the file up or burn to a DVD. I think Apple will do ok, but I don't see it being the same bonanza that that music was/is.
Netflix will slow down your service most likely. You'll start to see online that the movies you've sent back haven't quite cleared yet and that movies being sent out start to slow down.
Unless things have changed recently. But that's what they've done in the past.
I think a dollar a song is one thing because you can pick and choose from an album so the trade-off for quality is justified. However, $9.99 is a lot to ask for something that is very low quality, only looks really good an a 2" screen and takes a long time to download. Right now, we don't even know if you can back the file up or burn to a DVD. I think Apple will do ok, but I don't see it being the same bonanza that that music was/is.
Netflix will slow down your service most likely. You'll start to see online that the movies you've sent back haven't quite cleared yet and that movies being sent out start to slow down.
Unless things have changed recently. But that's what they've done in the past.
Earendil
Nov 27, 09:49 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
Eraserhead
Mar 20, 05:55 PM
Homeopathy does at least have the placebo effect.
Leet Apple
Feb 25, 11:35 AM
272787
left to right:
20" Apple Cinema Display, 1st Gen. 16gb iPod Touch, Late 2008 MacBook Pro on top of Griffin iStand controlled by an Apple wireless keyboard and Magic mouse, 1TB Seagate external HDD, 32gb Ipad wifi only, 21" Samsung display, 2cd Gen. TV, Razer Lycosa keyboard and Razer Death Adder mouse which controls a Windows XP box i built for my job(under the desk). You can barly see it but there is also a Power PC Mac Mini on top of the Windows machince which acts as a FTP server.
Looks Beautiful
left to right:
20" Apple Cinema Display, 1st Gen. 16gb iPod Touch, Late 2008 MacBook Pro on top of Griffin iStand controlled by an Apple wireless keyboard and Magic mouse, 1TB Seagate external HDD, 32gb Ipad wifi only, 21" Samsung display, 2cd Gen. TV, Razer Lycosa keyboard and Razer Death Adder mouse which controls a Windows XP box i built for my job(under the desk). You can barly see it but there is also a Power PC Mac Mini on top of the Windows machince which acts as a FTP server.
Looks Beautiful
Mr-Stabby
Apr 12, 09:29 PM
Isn't this utterly fantastic? These are the kinds of updates we used to get before Apple went all iPhone and iPad crazy. Glad to see they are finally giving such love to their Pro customers. Although i imagine this has been in the pipeline for a very long time!
If Apple give me a new Mac Pro to run this on, i will spend my entire years wage on them!
If Apple give me a new Mac Pro to run this on, i will spend my entire years wage on them!
LethalWolfe
Apr 12, 09:07 PM
Change that is an actual improvement is great. Change for the sake of change is not. On the consumer side things can almost never be made too simple or easy. On the manufacturing side, the creating side the professional side there are many times complex problems to solve and those problems require more complicated tools.
Lethal
Lethal
Takuro
Apr 3, 02:04 AM
Not sure if this is new to DP2, but if you go to System Preferences -> Appearance -> Sidebar icon size
You can now make the sidebar icons large, medium, or small.
Here's a preview of "large:"
http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/9610/40411461.png
EDIT: This setting also affects Mail.app's sidebar icon size. It seems this is meant to act as a unified systemwide setting that multiple applications, not only finder, will rely upon.
The only real complaint I have about this feature is that "small" is 0.9x the scale of "medium," and "large" is about 4.0x the scale of "medium." In other words, "small" and "medium" are about the same size, and "large" is a big jump. Apple would have been better off to have made the three sizes a little more uniformly ranged from one another so that "medium" is a bit bigger and "small" becomes what "medium" had been.
You can now make the sidebar icons large, medium, or small.
Here's a preview of "large:"
http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/9610/40411461.png
EDIT: This setting also affects Mail.app's sidebar icon size. It seems this is meant to act as a unified systemwide setting that multiple applications, not only finder, will rely upon.
The only real complaint I have about this feature is that "small" is 0.9x the scale of "medium," and "large" is about 4.0x the scale of "medium." In other words, "small" and "medium" are about the same size, and "large" is a big jump. Apple would have been better off to have made the three sizes a little more uniformly ranged from one another so that "medium" is a bit bigger and "small" becomes what "medium" had been.
Ping Guo
Apr 21, 12:08 PM
If anybody is interested, here is the iPhone Software License Agreement:
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf
On the very first page, there is a rather large paragraph describing the use of non-personal location data.
By using any location-based services on your iPhone, you agree and consent to Apple�s and its partners� and licensees� transmission, collection, maintenance, processing and use of your location data and queries to provide and improve such products and services. You may withdraw this consent at any time by going to the Location Services setting on your iPhone and either turning off the global Location Services setting or turning off the individual location settings of each location-aware application on your iPhone.
Great, so all the users who have their location services setting switched off shouldn't have any hidden files, right? :rolleyes:
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf
On the very first page, there is a rather large paragraph describing the use of non-personal location data.
By using any location-based services on your iPhone, you agree and consent to Apple�s and its partners� and licensees� transmission, collection, maintenance, processing and use of your location data and queries to provide and improve such products and services. You may withdraw this consent at any time by going to the Location Services setting on your iPhone and either turning off the global Location Services setting or turning off the individual location settings of each location-aware application on your iPhone.
Great, so all the users who have their location services setting switched off shouldn't have any hidden files, right? :rolleyes:
ghostlines
Mar 23, 01:30 PM
I'm glad they aren't planning to discontinue this baby. I mean c'mon I still think alot of people use it. The more gigs the better, all your music all the time, anywhere. They just need to add bluetooth to it, I know it has space for a decent battery, so bluetooth wouldn't drain it too fast at all.
mc68k
Dec 2, 12:29 PM
^ depressing but true. desktop computer hardware taking a back seat to iphones :( sad day
having been to CES, it's about 100x cooler than macworld i must say. it may just be the perfect forum to drum up more business
having been to CES, it's about 100x cooler than macworld i must say. it may just be the perfect forum to drum up more business
Small White Car
Apr 12, 09:40 PM
Ground up rewrite = a whole load of bugs.
It'll be interesting to see how many shops use this for production work when it's finally released.
I bet this'll be like when they changed iMovie...it won't over-write the old version and you can keep both Final Cuts on a single machine.
At least, I sure hope so. I mean, they have to do it that way, right?
Based on the name, this is obviously going to require heavy support from Quicktime X, which is not getting an update until Lion. Don't expect this before June.
Yeah, I will not be shocked if this ends up being a Lion-only application. They couldn't be that strict with many apps, but FCP is one that they could be with.
It'll be interesting to see how many shops use this for production work when it's finally released.
I bet this'll be like when they changed iMovie...it won't over-write the old version and you can keep both Final Cuts on a single machine.
At least, I sure hope so. I mean, they have to do it that way, right?
Based on the name, this is obviously going to require heavy support from Quicktime X, which is not getting an update until Lion. Don't expect this before June.
Yeah, I will not be shocked if this ends up being a Lion-only application. They couldn't be that strict with many apps, but FCP is one that they could be with.
Nameci
Feb 20, 08:09 PM
Current setup... my sig.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/SilverS3/Photo-0214.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/SilverS3/Photo-0214.jpg
RITZFit
Apr 9, 10:10 PM
For the record I very much prefer a stick shift.....better fuel economy
Ha! I get terrible gas mileage. I'm too busy winding the damn thing out to redline :D
Ha! I get terrible gas mileage. I'm too busy winding the damn thing out to redline :D
Paul Graham
Jan 23, 10:22 AM
I will be getting one of these later this year, Once I have enough put back lol...
http://www.meinekarre.de/cars/VW_BORA_AudiA3extra.jpg
No that isn't mine, But it's the style I'll be going with etc...
Call it inspiration lol.
So watch this space hehe......
http://www.meinekarre.de/cars/VW_BORA_AudiA3extra.jpg
No that isn't mine, But it's the style I'll be going with etc...
Call it inspiration lol.
So watch this space hehe......
Joshuarocks
Apr 19, 11:50 AM
I can't wait! My G5 iMac has officially died and gone to that big computer desk in the sky. It served me well for 5 years, but it's over. Darn thang won't even turn on anymore. I hear the apple start up chime, but the screen stays black and then the iMac just shuts off. But even if I could fix it, it's so old it can't run the latest OSX or even play HD movies. Yup...it's time to buy a new iMac.
I'm hoping that the next update sees i7s across the line...even the 21.5" models. I expect thunderbolt too since the MacBook pros got it. Other things on my wish list would be for them to include that rumored flash start up drive as standard....but I'm not holding my breath. It would be great if the 21.5" model got the same ability as the 27" to be used as an external monitor. That way in 5 years or more when it becomes unable to run the latest software, you can still use it as a second monitor. :-)
I like the 27" features, it's just a tad too big. Actually the rumor about Apple adding a 24" size back to the iMac lineup would be PERFECT. But again...not gonna count on it.
How fast is your imac G5? On my G5 Quad I can play 720,1080, and yes using HTML5, 4096p! If I recall the G5 Imacs had only one processor in there? Right? You might want to check out the powerpc forums for assistance if you want to know whats wrong with your imac. I sense a broken capacitor.
I'm hoping that the next update sees i7s across the line...even the 21.5" models. I expect thunderbolt too since the MacBook pros got it. Other things on my wish list would be for them to include that rumored flash start up drive as standard....but I'm not holding my breath. It would be great if the 21.5" model got the same ability as the 27" to be used as an external monitor. That way in 5 years or more when it becomes unable to run the latest software, you can still use it as a second monitor. :-)
I like the 27" features, it's just a tad too big. Actually the rumor about Apple adding a 24" size back to the iMac lineup would be PERFECT. But again...not gonna count on it.
How fast is your imac G5? On my G5 Quad I can play 720,1080, and yes using HTML5, 4096p! If I recall the G5 Imacs had only one processor in there? Right? You might want to check out the powerpc forums for assistance if you want to know whats wrong with your imac. I sense a broken capacitor.
alhedges
Apr 3, 12:25 PM
I think so too. The toaster vs oven analogy works better than Jobs' truck vs car analogy. somebody send Jobs an email so he can steal it :D
The problem with the toaster vs. oven analogy is that toasters don't cost the same as ovens. No one would buy a toaster if it cost $600. Nor is the iPad as limited as a toaster.
That's why the car vs. truck analogy is more apt.
The problem with the toaster vs. oven analogy is that toasters don't cost the same as ovens. No one would buy a toaster if it cost $600. Nor is the iPad as limited as a toaster.
That's why the car vs. truck analogy is more apt.
cjc343
Apr 4, 07:16 PM
Save Apple!!! Sign MY petition.....
http://www.petitiononline.com/savapple/petition.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/savapple/petition.html
twoodcc
Mar 4, 11:49 PM
Ditto!
I see some new folks putting up some points, designed, DistortedLoop, and MAcProCPO is back at it again, thanks for the effort to those and other newbies!
I had a problem with the MacPro after I upgraded to a 3 SSD raid for booting ... I forgot to set the machine to NOT go to sleep, DUH! I could not figure out why it was timing out of folding every so often with the remote Linux boards that I'm ssh'd into from the Mac. NOW that I have that figured out my points will pick up again. It was still impressive just running the 6 GPU's and 2 win clients at about 50k per day!
yeah i'm glad to see some new names!
glad you got your Mac Pro back up and going again. i won't be back up full throttle until early april though
also, i did end up getting another machine with an i7 920 in it with a GTX260. i've been messing around with overclocking it, and i'm pulling around 28-30K PPD with just the one machine - 1 GPU cliend and 1 bigadv client running inside a VM.
I see some new folks putting up some points, designed, DistortedLoop, and MAcProCPO is back at it again, thanks for the effort to those and other newbies!
I had a problem with the MacPro after I upgraded to a 3 SSD raid for booting ... I forgot to set the machine to NOT go to sleep, DUH! I could not figure out why it was timing out of folding every so often with the remote Linux boards that I'm ssh'd into from the Mac. NOW that I have that figured out my points will pick up again. It was still impressive just running the 6 GPU's and 2 win clients at about 50k per day!
yeah i'm glad to see some new names!
glad you got your Mac Pro back up and going again. i won't be back up full throttle until early april though
also, i did end up getting another machine with an i7 920 in it with a GTX260. i've been messing around with overclocking it, and i'm pulling around 28-30K PPD with just the one machine - 1 GPU cliend and 1 bigadv client running inside a VM.
rdowns
Apr 12, 05:51 PM
I don't think people are pumping it up at all. I personally think that people who can't drive a standard transmission, are just lazy (and that goes for my mother, and her habit of doing her makeup while driving). People only get autos, because they don't want to have to "inconvenience" themselves with pushing down on the clutch and throwing the car into the next gear; because doing so requires them to stop shoving food down their face, or to get of the damn phone. I also hate to hear people moan about how inconvenient a standard transmission is during stop and go traffic; I mean it's not that bad, and I recently took my standard transmission accord to chicago and drove in stop and go traffic for over two hours, and it was not as annoying as some would make it out to be. People are just too willing to sacrifice the fun of driving for convenience.
-Don
The more I read the stuff you post, the more I shake my head.
-Don
The more I read the stuff you post, the more I shake my head.
HunterMaximus
Nov 25, 03:09 PM
Some ski pants (black to go with my on-hill uniform, green for fun):
http://i55.tinypic.com/14mavxv.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/wl385w.jpg
New glasses. First time for me, astigmatism correction takes some getting used to, but I think they look good:
http://i56.tinypic.com/2vsf6ef.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/14mavxv.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/wl385w.jpg
New glasses. First time for me, astigmatism correction takes some getting used to, but I think they look good:
http://i56.tinypic.com/2vsf6ef.jpg