topgunn
Jul 15, 06:35 AM
The Power Mac G5 power supply is in the bottom but it is also isolated from the rest of the case so that the heat doesn't rise through all of the other zones. I prefer the power supply at the bottom. If it is indeed at the top, they will have relocated the hard drives. Hopefully they will be put into the bottom where we can fit 4-8 hard drives.
patp
Mar 22, 02:56 PM
Isn't this just a big game of catch up amongst the others (Samsung, RIM etc)?
Apple is so far ahead in the game it's kind of sad to see the other companies scramble like this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Apple is so far ahead in the game it's kind of sad to see the other companies scramble like this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
pkson
Apr 5, 11:43 PM
I wonder if they're gonna add (slightly useless) stuff from iMovie like face recognition (It's a great idea, but it takes too long to go through all the clips..)
I hope FCP is just awesome beyond comprehension.
I hope FCP is just awesome beyond comprehension.
shamino
Jul 21, 12:45 PM
I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
All I will say is that you are not a typical user. You are not even close to typical.
OK. So maybe you need ten thousand cores and three million gigabytes of RAM. Don't think for an instant that the majority of the world shares your requirements.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
All I will say is that you are not a typical user. You are not even close to typical.
OK. So maybe you need ten thousand cores and three million gigabytes of RAM. Don't think for an instant that the majority of the world shares your requirements.
jonharris200
Aug 5, 04:55 PM
Can someone confirm my calculations?
The keynote will start 8PM UK time?
No, it's 6pm UK time according to the countdown clock on the macrumors homepage.
The keynote will start 8PM UK time?
No, it's 6pm UK time according to the countdown clock on the macrumors homepage.
QuarterSwede
Apr 25, 01:44 PM
Wounded, Apple will go on strike and remove all GPS from future devices now. ;)
Apple's not spiteful at all. Nah. /sarcasm
Apple's not spiteful at all. Nah. /sarcasm
chasemac
Aug 7, 04:40 PM
Is Leopard going to take advantage of the 64 bit Dual G5?
carmenodie
Mar 22, 01:12 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Please who the hell would take a step way back by going with Samsung. Yeah them tablets look cool and very thin but so damn what. Apple has the ecosystem and the customer service. Also the fit and finish of the iPad is so much more awesome then those Sammy tablets. I don't hate but come on! Samsung doesn't even control the effing software. All they can do is skin the Honeycomb OS. I'm not impressed.
Please who the hell would take a step way back by going with Samsung. Yeah them tablets look cool and very thin but so damn what. Apple has the ecosystem and the customer service. Also the fit and finish of the iPad is so much more awesome then those Sammy tablets. I don't hate but come on! Samsung doesn't even control the effing software. All they can do is skin the Honeycomb OS. I'm not impressed.
SevenInchScrew
Aug 12, 11:05 AM
similar genre given racing, but one is a simulator - the other is, a bit more fictional (in a sense).
but anyway, thats a technicality. no doubt that NFS seems to be higher grossing and more popular, as GT targets a pretty acute market. i wonder if GT5 will change that at all.
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
but anyway, thats a technicality. no doubt that NFS seems to be higher grossing and more popular, as GT targets a pretty acute market. i wonder if GT5 will change that at all.
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
Littleodie914
Jul 27, 09:44 AM
So since these new mobile chips are pin-compatible with the Yonah chips (like the one in my MBP), will it be easy/possible to simply buy one and upgrade myself?
~Shard~
Jul 15, 12:37 AM
Personally I go the BTO route at Apple.com for my PowerMacs and downgrade all RAM to the minimum cost and buy my RAM from a trusted 3rd party vendor for a savings of at least 10% if not more so.
Exactly - this is one of the reasons I'm glad Apple is going with a minimum RAM configuration. I'd much rather buy RAM from a reputable 3rd party dealer than have to succumb myself to Apple's significant premiums. Always buy 3rd party, never from Apple. :cool:
I agree as I am waiting for the 8 core model with Leopard while I continue to limp along on the Quad G5.
Are you just going to hold out for a Dunnington PowerMac? :p ;)
Exactly - this is one of the reasons I'm glad Apple is going with a minimum RAM configuration. I'd much rather buy RAM from a reputable 3rd party dealer than have to succumb myself to Apple's significant premiums. Always buy 3rd party, never from Apple. :cool:
I agree as I am waiting for the 8 core model with Leopard while I continue to limp along on the Quad G5.
Are you just going to hold out for a Dunnington PowerMac? :p ;)
decimortis
Apr 6, 10:38 AM
I loves me my 11.6 ultimate and it hasn't let me down yet in the power department for my work with CS5, but of course, updated more faster, more shiny MBA's are always welcome. Can't say I'll upgrade but nice to see them progressing.
D.
D.
DeVizardofOZ
Aug 28, 07:09 AM
Well, it seems like you are the one having hard feelings...so chill out, since we all try to be polite in this forum...otherwise, just go visit some other place where you can vent your anger on people.
As I said above, I am talking about facts and statistics...I am sure there a few cases where guys are just unlucky and receive one lemon after another...but this does NOT represent a trend nor a relevant percentage. You must have this impression because you go to an Apple Support forum and see 100 posts complaining the hell out of it...you just fail, and fail badly, to realize that there are some 1,000,000 users out there with no problems at all.
Anyway, before you start babbling again, check the link below...these are FACTS, not whines.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2006502,00.asp
So please, before you spit out some fire, bring me some real facts, like percentage of failures and so on...the report I've read above shows Apple as having the LOWEST repair rate and HIGHEST trust of all makers. This, for me, is relevant; not random screams in Mac forums.
Really no hard feelings. You are right, and the professionals who do test and write reports
are making their reports up... Statisics, as we all know can be made to look one way or the other. The fact, that APPLE is acknowledging quality issues just proves that they themselves are not happpy with what's going on since the intro of the new MB and MBPs.
Carmelo+anthony+knicks+hd
Carmelo Anthony Knicks Jersey:
Chirs paul new york carmelo,
carmelo anthony wallpaper 2011
coming home new york knick
carmelo anthony new york
As I said above, I am talking about facts and statistics...I am sure there a few cases where guys are just unlucky and receive one lemon after another...but this does NOT represent a trend nor a relevant percentage. You must have this impression because you go to an Apple Support forum and see 100 posts complaining the hell out of it...you just fail, and fail badly, to realize that there are some 1,000,000 users out there with no problems at all.
Anyway, before you start babbling again, check the link below...these are FACTS, not whines.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2006502,00.asp
So please, before you spit out some fire, bring me some real facts, like percentage of failures and so on...the report I've read above shows Apple as having the LOWEST repair rate and HIGHEST trust of all makers. This, for me, is relevant; not random screams in Mac forums.
Really no hard feelings. You are right, and the professionals who do test and write reports
are making their reports up... Statisics, as we all know can be made to look one way or the other. The fact, that APPLE is acknowledging quality issues just proves that they themselves are not happpy with what's going on since the intro of the new MB and MBPs.
boncellis
Apr 6, 02:11 PM
I think it's mostly about the price. I, for one, can't see myself not buying the original (iPad) when the competition is the same price. When there are more commoditized components then Android tablets will have a more enticing pricepoint and consumers will be more likely to buy them.
CaoCao
Feb 28, 07:35 PM
No, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
Who cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
No, not proof
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
They still can not have valid sacramental marriage
Fornication doesn't matter if the person doesn't care about the religious connotations of marriage
Greek culture also endorsed pederasty!
I wasn't around in the 1970's, but I'm pretty sure that pedophilia wasn't normal then.
Some of this may be media frenzy, but if even one child rapist is hidden by the Catholic Church, it doesn't reflect well on them.
You do realize that the Church did what doctors said to right? They followed the medical professional advice that after treatment they were harmless and could go back.
Now priests can't even defend themselves, now it is guilty until proven innocent, also you don't get a trial to prove the innocence!
Who cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
No, not proof
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
They still can not have valid sacramental marriage
Fornication doesn't matter if the person doesn't care about the religious connotations of marriage
Greek culture also endorsed pederasty!
I wasn't around in the 1970's, but I'm pretty sure that pedophilia wasn't normal then.
Some of this may be media frenzy, but if even one child rapist is hidden by the Catholic Church, it doesn't reflect well on them.
You do realize that the Church did what doctors said to right? They followed the medical professional advice that after treatment they were harmless and could go back.
Now priests can't even defend themselves, now it is guilty until proven innocent, also you don't get a trial to prove the innocence!
CaoCao
Mar 3, 11:03 PM
If that's what you want to believe, fine. Respect my belief that it's perfectly fine, and stop making laws against me.
no one is preventing you from living with the person you love or having sex with him
Surely. Why do you believe you have any right or authority to dictate what two consulting adults should do or not?
And, if you do believe you (or a religious book) have that authority, then may I make the following statement to be equally as valid as yours:
Bill McEnaney should only engage in homosexual, sexually active relationships, and should never be engaged in heterosexual relationships, much less any that are anything but platonic.
Do you believe in the validity of my statement. Why or why not?
I look forward to your response.
Invalid because it endorses something that could cause the collapse of society
no one is preventing you from living with the person you love or having sex with him
Surely. Why do you believe you have any right or authority to dictate what two consulting adults should do or not?
And, if you do believe you (or a religious book) have that authority, then may I make the following statement to be equally as valid as yours:
Bill McEnaney should only engage in homosexual, sexually active relationships, and should never be engaged in heterosexual relationships, much less any that are anything but platonic.
Do you believe in the validity of my statement. Why or why not?
I look forward to your response.
Invalid because it endorses something that could cause the collapse of society
twoodcc
Aug 12, 09:04 PM
I don't really care if you count the Prologues as full releases or not. The fact remains...
GT1 + GT2 + GT3 + GT4 = 46M
...not 57M like you originally, and incorrectly, said.
but you do care. you are pointing out that you care by what you just typed. if you count the prologues, you get over 57M sold.
You brought up sales, not me. And last I checked, objectively, 100 is more than 57, regardless of how you subjectively look at it.
i disagree. let's bring math into the equation, since you seem to have missed it.
100,000,000/15 = 6,666,667.
57,000,000/8 = 7,125,000.
so GT has sold more copies per game.
No, the only thing that adds to is a stat point on the back of the box. I mean, hooray, someone's 87 CRX is in a racing game. YAY!! :rolleyes:
That is the problem with GT these days. Too much fluff, and lacking in the racing. I mean, whatever, they can make whatever kind of game they want. If they want to fill the game with 1000 cars, 800 of which most people never touch, they can do that. To me, though, they are losing what made the series great years ago.
well again this is your opinion. we all have one. i personally think that if someone is into cars, they will care about their car. not everyone can afford the cars in the game, but it might be nice to see that car that you can afford and have in real life in the game. i mean, the game is meant for people into cars.
NO WAY!!! I never knew that. :rolleyes:
just pointing out the facts. are you doing any different?
Sure, but a "Guinness Record" for it? Again, to much fluff.
they have records for everything. like how much cheese you can eat, or whatever. that's what Guinness Records are
No, it is a concept car that Citro�n paraded around at car shows. Lots of concept cars get built with the fake intention of going into production. But you know what? Almost none of them do. This Citro�n is no different.
but the intention of the car was for the game. how do you not see that? specifically for the game. in fact, it's named GT after the game
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great? so iPhone sales show nothing to how good it is? or iPod sales mean nothing to how well it is? of course it does. you make games to sell. if they don't sell, you stop making games. and then there wouldn't be this thread, b/c there would be no GT5.
GT1 + GT2 + GT3 + GT4 = 46M
...not 57M like you originally, and incorrectly, said.
but you do care. you are pointing out that you care by what you just typed. if you count the prologues, you get over 57M sold.
You brought up sales, not me. And last I checked, objectively, 100 is more than 57, regardless of how you subjectively look at it.
i disagree. let's bring math into the equation, since you seem to have missed it.
100,000,000/15 = 6,666,667.
57,000,000/8 = 7,125,000.
so GT has sold more copies per game.
No, the only thing that adds to is a stat point on the back of the box. I mean, hooray, someone's 87 CRX is in a racing game. YAY!! :rolleyes:
That is the problem with GT these days. Too much fluff, and lacking in the racing. I mean, whatever, they can make whatever kind of game they want. If they want to fill the game with 1000 cars, 800 of which most people never touch, they can do that. To me, though, they are losing what made the series great years ago.
well again this is your opinion. we all have one. i personally think that if someone is into cars, they will care about their car. not everyone can afford the cars in the game, but it might be nice to see that car that you can afford and have in real life in the game. i mean, the game is meant for people into cars.
NO WAY!!! I never knew that. :rolleyes:
just pointing out the facts. are you doing any different?
Sure, but a "Guinness Record" for it? Again, to much fluff.
they have records for everything. like how much cheese you can eat, or whatever. that's what Guinness Records are
No, it is a concept car that Citro�n paraded around at car shows. Lots of concept cars get built with the fake intention of going into production. But you know what? Almost none of them do. This Citro�n is no different.
but the intention of the car was for the game. how do you not see that? specifically for the game. in fact, it's named GT after the game
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great? so iPhone sales show nothing to how good it is? or iPod sales mean nothing to how well it is? of course it does. you make games to sell. if they don't sell, you stop making games. and then there wouldn't be this thread, b/c there would be no GT5.
mex4eric
Apr 6, 10:06 PM
Now just add that Thunderbolt port to the MBAs and I'll be first in line! :D
Obviously it will have the Thunderbolt port - it already has mini-Displayport.
Perfect, Sandy Bridge, Thunderbolt and June release!
Obviously it will have the Thunderbolt port - it already has mini-Displayport.
Perfect, Sandy Bridge, Thunderbolt and June release!
twoodcc
Aug 11, 05:30 PM
No, there has been 8 Gran Turismo games totaling 56M. If you only count the 4 full release titles, you get 46M.
http://www.polyphony.co.jp/english/list.html
i know there have been more 'titles'. but they are not full releases, but i did leave out Gran Turismo for PSP, so they are up to 5 full releases now.
So, I guess you aren't going to count the Need For Speed series either, are you? As a series, it is already over 100M sales.
yes i know, but there are more games in that series, and again, it's a different type of racing game.
take a look here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Turismo_(series))
The Gran Turismo video game series has been one of the most popular over its lifetime, appealing to an audience ranging from casual gamers to fans of realistic PC racing sims. Because of the success of the Gran Turismo series, Guinness World Records awarded the series 7 world records in the Guinness World Records: Gamer's Edition 2008. These records include "Largest Number of cars in a Racing game", "Highest Selling PlayStation Game","Oldest Car in a Racing Game", and "Largest Instruction Guide for a Racing Game".
With a collective sales total of over 57 million units sold[1], it is the highest-selling PlayStation exclusive franchise of all time.
Name for me one real car that was created just for GT. Not a concept car, a REAL car.
GT by Citro�n (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT_by_Citro�n).
granted, only 6 were made, but still, it's a real car. its not a fake one
http://www.polyphony.co.jp/english/list.html
i know there have been more 'titles'. but they are not full releases, but i did leave out Gran Turismo for PSP, so they are up to 5 full releases now.
So, I guess you aren't going to count the Need For Speed series either, are you? As a series, it is already over 100M sales.
yes i know, but there are more games in that series, and again, it's a different type of racing game.
take a look here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Turismo_(series))
The Gran Turismo video game series has been one of the most popular over its lifetime, appealing to an audience ranging from casual gamers to fans of realistic PC racing sims. Because of the success of the Gran Turismo series, Guinness World Records awarded the series 7 world records in the Guinness World Records: Gamer's Edition 2008. These records include "Largest Number of cars in a Racing game", "Highest Selling PlayStation Game","Oldest Car in a Racing Game", and "Largest Instruction Guide for a Racing Game".
With a collective sales total of over 57 million units sold[1], it is the highest-selling PlayStation exclusive franchise of all time.
Name for me one real car that was created just for GT. Not a concept car, a REAL car.
GT by Citro�n (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT_by_Citro�n).
granted, only 6 were made, but still, it's a real car. its not a fake one
zero2dash
Sep 18, 01:44 PM
Plenty of people ran NT on their desktops.
Admission of your mistakes is a good step in becoming a better person.
Key word being DESKTOPS.
MP machines were server based long before they were included in desktops. I'd like to see where people had dual Xeon based DESKTOPS 'cause I've never seen it. It's not impossible but it's also not a good cost-based answer either. :p
The server/desktop division with Windows - as with OS X - is one of marketing, not software. Windows "Workstation" and Windows "Server" use the same codebase.
I never said otherwise.
The hardware they run on is where it differentiates.
Most people/corporations run server-based OS on servers and workstation-based OS on desktops (or "workstations" in the business world). It's not impossible to run a server OS on a desktop or a workstation OS on a server but it is incredibly stupid.
Well, if you can't find evidence of Windows running on well on machine with >2 processors, or of the significant low-level changes Microsoft have made to ensure it does, you aren't looking very hard.
Bad dual core support? Citations please. I think this is a case where a Mac fan is simply speaking out of ignorance of their "enemy" platform.
I erronously bundled in "dual core" with "sketchy 64-bit support". Don't know why. From what I hear, 64-bit support in XP64 is sketchy because of device driver issues (and drivers not being natively 64-bit). I don't have any true 'dual core' systems myself but my P4 3.0C HT works fine in XP Pro. I apologize for lumping in "dual core" in.
Similarly, if you're one of the "Vista is just XP with a fancy skin" crowd, you've obviously not done much research. The changes in Vista are on par with the scale of changes Apple made to NeXT to get OS X.
User Account Protection is a big change. I've seen the list of "new features" and it doesn't do anything for me. UAP is nice...it's just really late. I'm sure there's changes "under the hood" like the ones implemented in XP sp2 to prevent buffer/stack overflows, etc. and I'm sure that's what you're referring to.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
So - are you inferring that Windows 2000 or Windows XP never blue screen? Because (if you are) that's a load of crap. I've seen blue screens in both OS's. Granted it's usually tied to hardware only, but it still happens. I've had an external USB drive blue screen in XP every time I turned it on, tried on 3 XP computers. Hardware fault, no doubt. Lately my HP Laptop dvd drive has been causing XP Pro to blue screen every other time I insert a dvd-r. Again - hardware fault.
Otherwise are both OS's stable? Damn straight. But problems do occur and I hope you're not suggesting otherwise. No OS is without its flaws.
Admission of your mistakes is a good step in becoming a better person.
Key word being DESKTOPS.
MP machines were server based long before they were included in desktops. I'd like to see where people had dual Xeon based DESKTOPS 'cause I've never seen it. It's not impossible but it's also not a good cost-based answer either. :p
The server/desktop division with Windows - as with OS X - is one of marketing, not software. Windows "Workstation" and Windows "Server" use the same codebase.
I never said otherwise.
The hardware they run on is where it differentiates.
Most people/corporations run server-based OS on servers and workstation-based OS on desktops (or "workstations" in the business world). It's not impossible to run a server OS on a desktop or a workstation OS on a server but it is incredibly stupid.
Well, if you can't find evidence of Windows running on well on machine with >2 processors, or of the significant low-level changes Microsoft have made to ensure it does, you aren't looking very hard.
Bad dual core support? Citations please. I think this is a case where a Mac fan is simply speaking out of ignorance of their "enemy" platform.
I erronously bundled in "dual core" with "sketchy 64-bit support". Don't know why. From what I hear, 64-bit support in XP64 is sketchy because of device driver issues (and drivers not being natively 64-bit). I don't have any true 'dual core' systems myself but my P4 3.0C HT works fine in XP Pro. I apologize for lumping in "dual core" in.
Similarly, if you're one of the "Vista is just XP with a fancy skin" crowd, you've obviously not done much research. The changes in Vista are on par with the scale of changes Apple made to NeXT to get OS X.
User Account Protection is a big change. I've seen the list of "new features" and it doesn't do anything for me. UAP is nice...it's just really late. I'm sure there's changes "under the hood" like the ones implemented in XP sp2 to prevent buffer/stack overflows, etc. and I'm sure that's what you're referring to.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
So - are you inferring that Windows 2000 or Windows XP never blue screen? Because (if you are) that's a load of crap. I've seen blue screens in both OS's. Granted it's usually tied to hardware only, but it still happens. I've had an external USB drive blue screen in XP every time I turned it on, tried on 3 XP computers. Hardware fault, no doubt. Lately my HP Laptop dvd drive has been causing XP Pro to blue screen every other time I insert a dvd-r. Again - hardware fault.
Otherwise are both OS's stable? Damn straight. But problems do occur and I hope you're not suggesting otherwise. No OS is without its flaws.
epitaphic
Aug 18, 09:06 PM
Do you think a Conroe iMac will beat a Mac Pro due to lower memory latency alone? Do you have real experience or data regarding how horrendous a problem this is? Extra dual-core processor aside, the Mac Pro has a higher speed FSB, higher memory bus bandwidth, higher RAM capacity, and ability to set up internal RAID amongst other advantages over a Conroe iMac.
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac. But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
the Mac Pro (...) actually takes longer to access main memory than the Core Duo processor in the MacBook Pro. This is much worse than it sounds once you take into account the fact that the MacBook Pro features a 667MHz FSB compared to the 1333MHz FSB (per chip) used in the Mac Pro.
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
It's not Apple's fault, but FB-DIMMs absolutely kill memory latency; even running in quad channel mode, the FB-DIMM equipped Mac Pro takes 45% more time to access memory than our DDR2 equipped test bed at the same memory frequency.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac. But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
the Mac Pro (...) actually takes longer to access main memory than the Core Duo processor in the MacBook Pro. This is much worse than it sounds once you take into account the fact that the MacBook Pro features a 667MHz FSB compared to the 1333MHz FSB (per chip) used in the Mac Pro.
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
It's not Apple's fault, but FB-DIMMs absolutely kill memory latency; even running in quad channel mode, the FB-DIMM equipped Mac Pro takes 45% more time to access memory than our DDR2 equipped test bed at the same memory frequency.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
HecubusPro
Sep 19, 09:21 AM
That whole comment had the tone of a spoilt 13 year old...
You have no idea why some ppl are waiting for the next revision or upgrade - don't benchmark your rationale with others in way that dismisses other ppl who have equally legitimate reasons and opinions...
Some ppl (who don't have allot of money to drop every year for the next best thing) have to spend wisely - and perhaps just want a revB machine that is more stable and refined. I for one keep my macs until they die...so I will be waiting for revB to maximise my chances of a solid bug-free machine.
If that makes me spoilt - b/c I don't want to purchase new products year after year - then there is nothing I can do about your perceptions...
AMEN!!!! :D
You have no idea why some ppl are waiting for the next revision or upgrade - don't benchmark your rationale with others in way that dismisses other ppl who have equally legitimate reasons and opinions...
Some ppl (who don't have allot of money to drop every year for the next best thing) have to spend wisely - and perhaps just want a revB machine that is more stable and refined. I for one keep my macs until they die...so I will be waiting for revB to maximise my chances of a solid bug-free machine.
If that makes me spoilt - b/c I don't want to purchase new products year after year - then there is nothing I can do about your perceptions...
AMEN!!!! :D
Hellhammer
Dec 9, 10:08 AM
*snip*
Even though I sometimes get bored of your constant dissing of GT5, those are my thoughts as well. There are way too many things and all have been done pretty mediocrely.
For example the karting, there are like 6 races of that. As they added it to the game, why couldn't they just put a decent amount of those races into the game then? Seems like a waste of money and time to add such things that are barely used.
I agree 100% that there are way too many cars. Well, maybe not too many cars but too many crappy and totally useless cars. I wouldn't mind if there was 1000 great sports cars but since most of them seem to be some regular cars that start to cough when you go +100km/h, it's pretty ridiculous. Nobody wants to drive cars like that, people want speed!
Some cars from GT4 also look fairly bad (blurry texts, license plates and stuff like that) which is a shame. 6 years of waiting and they end up transferring cars from an old game to a new one.
Menus are what I expected from a Japanese game, horrible.
It's not a bad game but it could have been a lot better
Even though I sometimes get bored of your constant dissing of GT5, those are my thoughts as well. There are way too many things and all have been done pretty mediocrely.
For example the karting, there are like 6 races of that. As they added it to the game, why couldn't they just put a decent amount of those races into the game then? Seems like a waste of money and time to add such things that are barely used.
I agree 100% that there are way too many cars. Well, maybe not too many cars but too many crappy and totally useless cars. I wouldn't mind if there was 1000 great sports cars but since most of them seem to be some regular cars that start to cough when you go +100km/h, it's pretty ridiculous. Nobody wants to drive cars like that, people want speed!
Some cars from GT4 also look fairly bad (blurry texts, license plates and stuff like that) which is a shame. 6 years of waiting and they end up transferring cars from an old game to a new one.
Menus are what I expected from a Japanese game, horrible.
It's not a bad game but it could have been a lot better
BlizzardBomb
Aug 6, 05:17 PM
Sources inform me that it is going to be blue.
:p
No way! :p Well looking back, it seems to get swooshier as time goes on, maybe that's a pointer ;) But what if... there's something radically different? :eek:
:p
No way! :p Well looking back, it seems to get swooshier as time goes on, maybe that's a pointer ;) But what if... there's something radically different? :eek:
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น