rezenclowd3
Dec 8, 12:25 PM
^^^ Again, from Sony and referenced in my post 152 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11513752&postcount=152)
Sony has since clarified to IGN how damage works in the game. "Damage occurs to cars right from the beginning," Sony said in a statement, "it is not "unlocked."
Confusion seems to have stemmed from its differing implementation across the game's extensive garage, a point that Sony further clarified. "Standard models have minor deformation and scratches," said Sony, "Premium cars have greater visible level of damage, and Premium racing models have the highest level of damage."
I'm not arguing, just pointing out what Sony themselves have to say on the subject. Of course, as you progress further into the game, you are going to use more Premium racing models.
Sony has since clarified to IGN how damage works in the game. "Damage occurs to cars right from the beginning," Sony said in a statement, "it is not "unlocked."
Confusion seems to have stemmed from its differing implementation across the game's extensive garage, a point that Sony further clarified. "Standard models have minor deformation and scratches," said Sony, "Premium cars have greater visible level of damage, and Premium racing models have the highest level of damage."
I'm not arguing, just pointing out what Sony themselves have to say on the subject. Of course, as you progress further into the game, you are going to use more Premium racing models.
MCIowaRulz
Apr 5, 08:44 PM
I agree I for see FCP needing Mac OS X Lion
macpross
Aug 6, 11:28 PM
Great joke, thanks very much...in the same line as Tiger Computer Dealers, right?
We already have a Mac Pro line of products, we are also the owners of AppleLocks, and MacMice. The Tiger thing was silly.
We already have a Mac Pro line of products, we are also the owners of AppleLocks, and MacMice. The Tiger thing was silly.
NewSc2
Sep 19, 02:18 AM
Does it even MATTER if Apple keeps up? Do we actually WANT Apple to release a new computer every month when Intel bumps up their chips a few megahertz?
See, it's easy to get lost in the specs war. The Mac Pros came out and I was salivating, even though I have a dual 2.0GHz G5 sitting at home. And then one day, as I was editing some HD footage, it occurred ot me that my G5 here - my now outdated G5 - was editing 1080p high-def footage without so much as a flinch. It was SO fast it was not even necessary at all.
So I really have to ask - does Apple really need to get into that stupid-ass PC specs war? Is it really hurting you guys that Apple has been slow to update? Are you really doing tasks that the current computer lineup cannot do?
Hm, well my Powerbook runs barely 4 instances of Sculpture on some of my works. MacBook Pros can run about 15-17, but I've been holding off on the Rev. A because of all the heat issues. Hopefully those get cleared up.
Anyways -- yes, I think we should expect Apple to update along with everybody else on the PC front. Maybe not every small speed bump, but whenever a newly designed chip comes out.
See, it's easy to get lost in the specs war. The Mac Pros came out and I was salivating, even though I have a dual 2.0GHz G5 sitting at home. And then one day, as I was editing some HD footage, it occurred ot me that my G5 here - my now outdated G5 - was editing 1080p high-def footage without so much as a flinch. It was SO fast it was not even necessary at all.
So I really have to ask - does Apple really need to get into that stupid-ass PC specs war? Is it really hurting you guys that Apple has been slow to update? Are you really doing tasks that the current computer lineup cannot do?
Hm, well my Powerbook runs barely 4 instances of Sculpture on some of my works. MacBook Pros can run about 15-17, but I've been holding off on the Rev. A because of all the heat issues. Hopefully those get cleared up.
Anyways -- yes, I think we should expect Apple to update along with everybody else on the PC front. Maybe not every small speed bump, but whenever a newly designed chip comes out.
starflyer
Mar 22, 03:07 PM
The iPad 2 is nice, but it needs more RAM. Multitasking is just terrible with few RAM and bad OS processes handling.
Says the man who doesn't even own one.
Next months will be crucial for me to decide the successor of my iPad 1.
Says the man who doesn't even own one.
Next months will be crucial for me to decide the successor of my iPad 1.
63dot
Apr 25, 02:16 PM
Law is not justice, and one of the few absolutes in this shaky profession is that if a company is big and doing well, then they are a target, both to plaintiffs and to the lawyers who cash in over these attacks on Apple.
Apple will probably have to pay out some sort of millions over this, and for Apple, it's the price of doing business. Hey Apple, welcome to the territory that once belonged to the Microsofts and Dells of this industry. When suits this big and frivolous come out, it shows Apple has reached a prime level of success. My old contracts professor called this the deep pocket theory and the frivolous lawsuit we tackled that night was one just as ridiculous but against Dell, who was on the rise for #1 at the time and it went all the way to the Supreme Court and took years and many tens of millions of dollars to iron out. Expect this suit to be ugly.
Apple will probably have to pay out some sort of millions over this, and for Apple, it's the price of doing business. Hey Apple, welcome to the territory that once belonged to the Microsofts and Dells of this industry. When suits this big and frivolous come out, it shows Apple has reached a prime level of success. My old contracts professor called this the deep pocket theory and the frivolous lawsuit we tackled that night was one just as ridiculous but against Dell, who was on the rise for #1 at the time and it went all the way to the Supreme Court and took years and many tens of millions of dollars to iron out. Expect this suit to be ugly.
QCassidy352
Jul 20, 03:53 PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
What? Apple*differentiates the XServes by having them 1U thick and rackmountable. One buys a rackmount server not because it's faster but because it's smaller and fits in a rack.
yeah, what he said. Apple does not have to distinguish powermacs from servers with processor speeds. People (businesses) who need servers are not going to buy powermacs to do the job even if they are a little bit faster or cheaper; they are going to buy real rack-mounted servers.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
What? Apple*differentiates the XServes by having them 1U thick and rackmountable. One buys a rackmount server not because it's faster but because it's smaller and fits in a rack.
yeah, what he said. Apple does not have to distinguish powermacs from servers with processor speeds. People (businesses) who need servers are not going to buy powermacs to do the job even if they are a little bit faster or cheaper; they are going to buy real rack-mounted servers.
*LTD*
Apr 6, 07:51 AM
Impossible.
Apple's no longer supposed to care about their Pro software.
This will never happen.
Apple's no longer supposed to care about their Pro software.
This will never happen.
Nuck81
Dec 23, 07:39 PM
well im a little stuck. my zonda r isnt fast enough for a lot of the top races, and the newly appointed online dealership has nice cars, but it doesnt rotate between them. so im really waiting for a nice car to come up in the used garage. either that or ill have to save up like 4M for a dealership car
Zonda R is one of the better cars in the game. It will win any race you enter with it if you are able to drive. Add some downforce and lower the throttle sensitivity and it's a little easier to handle.
Zonda R is one of the better cars in the game. It will win any race you enter with it if you are able to drive. Add some downforce and lower the throttle sensitivity and it's a little easier to handle.
thunng8
Apr 7, 05:31 PM
ULV CPUs (17W) will go to 11.6". The TDP of 320M is not known but 9400M has TDP of 12W so it is quite safe to assume that the TDP is similar to that. That means current 11.6" MBA has TDP of 22W (includes CPU, GPU, chipset) while SB 11.6" MBA would have a TDP of 21W (17W for the CPU and ~4W for the PCH).
13" will go with LV CPUs (25W). Again, currently it has 17W for the CPU and 12W for 320M. That's 29W. 25W CPU and ~4W for PCH gives you the same 29W.
11.6" - Core i5-2537M (option for Core i7-2657M)
13.3" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
The trouble is .. I find the TDP numbers for Sandy Bridge very misleading. For example the previous i7 2.66Ghz dual core had a TDP of 35W and the current i7 2.2Ghz quad core has a TDP of 45W. Theoretically, it should only use 10W more when doing CPU intensive task, but according to anandtech who measured the task, the i7 Sandy Bridge Quad core was using almost 40W more when running cinebench.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/14
It just doesn't make any sense. Going by those figures, if the i7 dual core was 35W, the i7 Sandy Bridge quad core would be around 70W.
Not sure how this relates to potential MacBook Air Sandy Bridge processors, but keep in mind.. there must be a reason why Samsung went for the ULV processor in their 13" laptop instead of the LV one.
13" will go with LV CPUs (25W). Again, currently it has 17W for the CPU and 12W for 320M. That's 29W. 25W CPU and ~4W for PCH gives you the same 29W.
11.6" - Core i5-2537M (option for Core i7-2657M)
13.3" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
The trouble is .. I find the TDP numbers for Sandy Bridge very misleading. For example the previous i7 2.66Ghz dual core had a TDP of 35W and the current i7 2.2Ghz quad core has a TDP of 45W. Theoretically, it should only use 10W more when doing CPU intensive task, but according to anandtech who measured the task, the i7 Sandy Bridge Quad core was using almost 40W more when running cinebench.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/14
It just doesn't make any sense. Going by those figures, if the i7 dual core was 35W, the i7 Sandy Bridge quad core would be around 70W.
Not sure how this relates to potential MacBook Air Sandy Bridge processors, but keep in mind.. there must be a reason why Samsung went for the ULV processor in their 13" laptop instead of the LV one.
�algiris
Apr 27, 08:51 AM
Why did it take so long for Apple to release a statement?
Because they hoped people will grow up and educate themselfs. That never happened obviously.
Because they hoped people will grow up and educate themselfs. That never happened obviously.
Multimedia
Aug 27, 01:57 AM
How do you get black aluminum? Or is this just a wish? Cause that'd be pretty ill.
And what is the easy access HD bay?It is speculated by some of us that the next MacBook Pro revision will include a Black Anodized Aluminum case. Here is the MacWorld video showing the MacBook's Easy Access HD Bay (http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macword/2006/05/macbookvideo/index.php) which many of us here think is a Pro feature Apple must implement in the next revision of the MacBook Pro. :)
Here is the Apple documentation on the MacBook's Easy Access Hard Drive Bay (http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/MacBook_13inch_HardDrive_DIY.pdf).
And what is the easy access HD bay?It is speculated by some of us that the next MacBook Pro revision will include a Black Anodized Aluminum case. Here is the MacWorld video showing the MacBook's Easy Access HD Bay (http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macword/2006/05/macbookvideo/index.php) which many of us here think is a Pro feature Apple must implement in the next revision of the MacBook Pro. :)
Here is the Apple documentation on the MacBook's Easy Access Hard Drive Bay (http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/MacBook_13inch_HardDrive_DIY.pdf).
BRLawyer
Aug 20, 05:34 AM
The only conclusion following the advent of the duo MacPro x Leopard is this: Microsoft Windows is dead.
donlphi
Nov 29, 12:26 AM
I teach high school kids and I hear them talk about stuff all the time. I know one thing for sure, if kids can't find what they want on iTUNES, they will download it illegally. My thoughts are, if a record company doesn't want to sell their music at iTunes, it's their loss at this point. They could sell some or none. If it isn't available at iTunes, then people only have a few other options.
1. Buy the CD at a retail store (if there is one nearby and stock is available)
2. Go without completely
3. Download a copy from ____________ (fill in the blank)
If I spend $300 on a media player, I will (as will others) find a way to get any music on there.
I don't see Apple giving in unless they TRULY feel the record companies are deserving... which they are not.
1. Buy the CD at a retail store (if there is one nearby and stock is available)
2. Go without completely
3. Download a copy from ____________ (fill in the blank)
If I spend $300 on a media player, I will (as will others) find a way to get any music on there.
I don't see Apple giving in unless they TRULY feel the record companies are deserving... which they are not.
UmaThurman
Sep 18, 11:09 PM
Y'all just wait a bit longer. it'll come soon.
gnasher729
Jul 20, 01:06 PM
I have a question.
If Kentsfield is a relation of the Conroe part (ie. Core 2 Duo) then will it be capable of being configured in a pair to create a "octo" core machine?
Surely that will require a Xeon class processor (like a quad version of the Woodcrest)?
Most likely not. The other question is: Is it easy to plug a Kentsfield into a machine designed for Conroe (not for the end user, but for Apple), and is it easy to plug two Clovertowns into a machine designed for two Woodcrests?
If Kentsfield is a relation of the Conroe part (ie. Core 2 Duo) then will it be capable of being configured in a pair to create a "octo" core machine?
Surely that will require a Xeon class processor (like a quad version of the Woodcrest)?
Most likely not. The other question is: Is it easy to plug a Kentsfield into a machine designed for Conroe (not for the end user, but for Apple), and is it easy to plug two Clovertowns into a machine designed for two Woodcrests?
mikethebigo
Apr 6, 10:56 AM
Can we also expect, ?
-Backlit keys
-Brighter display, colors, and IPS
-HD Facetime
All would be greatly appreciated along with the Sandy Bridge
fingers crossed for no Over-heating issues, you know how those turbo speeds can get and how they've treated the 13'' Pros
I might not expect IPS, doesn�t it draw more power than TN LCDs?
-Backlit keys
-Brighter display, colors, and IPS
-HD Facetime
All would be greatly appreciated along with the Sandy Bridge
fingers crossed for no Over-heating issues, you know how those turbo speeds can get and how they've treated the 13'' Pros
I might not expect IPS, doesn�t it draw more power than TN LCDs?
kdarling
Mar 23, 10:18 AM
If you read my original post, you'll notice that I was referring to the fact that many programmers are careless about optimizing their code all because they can count on a large amount of resources, and because they get lazy.
I think anyone programming above assembly language and/or on a device with more than about 16K of memory, gets lazy :)
Most Mac programmers are good at optimizing, while many Windows programmers are not.
Where does Apple's horrible iTunes for Windows fit into this myth?
I think anyone programming above assembly language and/or on a device with more than about 16K of memory, gets lazy :)
Most Mac programmers are good at optimizing, while many Windows programmers are not.
Where does Apple's horrible iTunes for Windows fit into this myth?
BaldiMac
Apr 19, 04:00 PM
I'm speaking about estimated Q1/11 to Q4/10 numbers (the est. Q1/11 numbers is what that news was about...). And what about reading the graphs I posted yourself? :rolleyes:
Well that's a pretty disingenuous comparison for a device on an annual release schedule. Year over year would be more appropriate.
I saw the table you posted. It doesn't prove what you said.
You said "Apple is losing marketshare for over 2 years now." Apple has increased their market share by more than 50% over the last two years.
Well that's a pretty disingenuous comparison for a device on an annual release schedule. Year over year would be more appropriate.
I saw the table you posted. It doesn't prove what you said.
You said "Apple is losing marketshare for over 2 years now." Apple has increased their market share by more than 50% over the last two years.
nagromme
Aug 25, 03:22 PM
It would be a shame to Apple toss aside its consistent record of having the industry's best support.
But it takes more than a few weeks of anonymous "uptick" to indicate such a dire turn of events.
Now, if such a thing did come to pass, I welcome every complaint and flame Apple can get: feedback is what gets them back on track.
And it's a shame about the discussion staff--seems like an odd move from where I'm standing.
But it takes more than a few weeks of anonymous "uptick" to indicate such a dire turn of events.
Now, if such a thing did come to pass, I welcome every complaint and flame Apple can get: feedback is what gets them back on track.
And it's a shame about the discussion staff--seems like an odd move from where I'm standing.
bedifferent
Apr 5, 07:50 PM
Interestingly this contradicts the information my friend on the design team hinted towards. I know the release is imminent so time will tell.
troller
Apr 19, 03:10 PM
and the even bigger joke ist...all the apple stuff is produced for a small budget in china and sold like Karl Lagerfeld himself produced every little piece. Sorry but that's a shame!
Multimedia
Jul 21, 12:20 PM
It really depends on your application.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.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.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.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.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
RichP
Jul 14, 03:59 PM
Ha, when I posted a while back that using Dell as a guide, Xeon processors were feasible, I was ignored, now it seems totally reasonable...
Anyway, I dont see why people make sure comparisons to Windows machines now that we are running Intel hardware. Apple is not building Windows machines, they are building Apple machines that run OSX. Benchmarks will be made, and at times Apple isnt going to win them. But its the OSX experience, and its stability as a platform, that is going to be a selling point, not the all out speed of the top-of-the-top Intel processor (the highest end PC processors always carry a heavy premium; its difficult to say that the yield of what we are shown as the highest available G5 is similar to the yields intel has for their high end)
I just have my fingers crossed that we see some cool "fast-OS switching" in Leopard with these machines.
Anyway, I dont see why people make sure comparisons to Windows machines now that we are running Intel hardware. Apple is not building Windows machines, they are building Apple machines that run OSX. Benchmarks will be made, and at times Apple isnt going to win them. But its the OSX experience, and its stability as a platform, that is going to be a selling point, not the all out speed of the top-of-the-top Intel processor (the highest end PC processors always carry a heavy premium; its difficult to say that the yield of what we are shown as the highest available G5 is similar to the yields intel has for their high end)
I just have my fingers crossed that we see some cool "fast-OS switching" in Leopard with these machines.
No comments:
Post a Comment