xStep
Apr 10, 04:58 AM
I'm a little confused...why was Avid presenting at a Final Cut Pro User Group's meeting anyway? Do they just come in and are like "Hey, you've all made a mistake!" or something?
No, they come in and professionally present their product like they would do for any audience, as personally seen at an LAFCPUG (http://www.lafcpug.org/) meeting.
Michael Horton who runs LAFCPUG, and is one of the main organizers of the Supermeet, has the attitude that editors should be aware of all the tools available, including competition to FCP. Also remember that not all people are tied to one tool.
The speculation of how Apple got into the meeting is humorous. Hopefully Michael will eventually give up some information.
Apple can easily make there own event, just book that building in SF and invite some journalists or plan in advance!!
Giving an in depth presentation to this FCP centric audience will likely get Apple much more buzz in the editing community than a standard announcement in front of journalists.
No, they come in and professionally present their product like they would do for any audience, as personally seen at an LAFCPUG (http://www.lafcpug.org/) meeting.
Michael Horton who runs LAFCPUG, and is one of the main organizers of the Supermeet, has the attitude that editors should be aware of all the tools available, including competition to FCP. Also remember that not all people are tied to one tool.
The speculation of how Apple got into the meeting is humorous. Hopefully Michael will eventually give up some information.
Apple can easily make there own event, just book that building in SF and invite some journalists or plan in advance!!
Giving an in depth presentation to this FCP centric audience will likely get Apple much more buzz in the editing community than a standard announcement in front of journalists.
layte
Mar 31, 03:04 PM
From now on, companies hoping to receive early access to Google's most up-to-date software will need approval of their plans.
Emphasis on the important bit for those who didn't bother to actually read the article. If you want to wait a bit, you can get the code and do whatever you want. Well that's my reading of it anyway, but please, don't let get in the way of giving the new enemy number one a good kicking.
Emphasis on the important bit for those who didn't bother to actually read the article. If you want to wait a bit, you can get the code and do whatever you want. Well that's my reading of it anyway, but please, don't let get in the way of giving the new enemy number one a good kicking.
Full of Win
Mar 31, 07:19 PM
Exactly. What we need are more objective, balanced and rational sounding opinions like yours.
What he said was spot on. Gruber is the archetypical Apple sycophant, second only to Andy Ifatso from MacBreak Weekly.
What he said was spot on. Gruber is the archetypical Apple sycophant, second only to Andy Ifatso from MacBreak Weekly.
nagromme
Jul 14, 03:11 PM
Except Conroes don't support dual processor configuration. Woodcrest does, hence the reason it will be in the Pro line machines while Conroe is put into new iMacs.
Right, but I didn't say dual processors, I said dual cores.
I see no reason why ALL Pro machines need quad cores, when today's dual core G5s are FAR slower than that and still blaze through a lot of useful work! An all-quad pro lineup would be "cool" (and I seek a quad anyway, personally) but would simply add cost without justification, for many people.
In addition, if the new chips are supply-constrained at all having both Conroe and Woodcrest in the pro towers could help. (And the iMac does fine with Yonah for a while if need be--which seems likely to happen to me.)
Right, but I didn't say dual processors, I said dual cores.
I see no reason why ALL Pro machines need quad cores, when today's dual core G5s are FAR slower than that and still blaze through a lot of useful work! An all-quad pro lineup would be "cool" (and I seek a quad anyway, personally) but would simply add cost without justification, for many people.
In addition, if the new chips are supply-constrained at all having both Conroe and Woodcrest in the pro towers could help. (And the iMac does fine with Yonah for a while if need be--which seems likely to happen to me.)
fivepoint
Mar 22, 12:56 PM
Precisely. The UN mandate is to enforce a no-fly zone, amongst other things, tasks that are particularly suited for certain nations. I'm no gung-ho supporter of this action in Libya, but it strikes me as similar to Bosnia, with the real political pressure coming particularly from France for very real reasons.
Expect the overt US involvement to rapidly scale back soon.
Did Ronald Reagan get a go-ahead from Congress in 1986 for attacking Libya?
No he did not. It was a mistake then, it is a mistake now. The only difference is, I oppose it in all circumstances, regardless of who's president. You only oppose it when it's a Republican in office.
Wait a second. Wait a second. You are trying to compare the media's portrayal of GWB over about SEVEN years, TWO wars, and HOW MANY lies to Libya and less then ONE WEEK. The Lybia thing has been going on for about a day or so. In the FIRST days of the Afghanistan war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? In the FIRST days of the Iraq war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? Democrats were falling all over themselves to support the President and the need to get those WMDs, which is why after almost 6 years, it was a defining issue of the presidential campaign. The candidates 5 years later were all explaining why they supported one war then, but not now after all the lies were exposed, or how they were against it all along. Not to mention Afghanistan after 7 years. There were a few, unlike now, where there are a lot.
This is THE FIRST WEEK of this thing, and NBC nightly news had their entire story about: criticism from congress; inability of white house to deal with that problem, partly because in Brazil; late involvement; involvement here but not in Somalia, Congo, etc..., risk that Ghaddafi would survive this and remain in power; lack of real Arab support and weak coalition; and fact that opposition is disorganized, poorly armed and leaderless, and probably won't be able to win without military support on the ground.
That's pretty hard reporting, and I'm very happy Congress is being critical. Almost everything Fivepoint, the GOP and the Democrats who are speaking out have said is a valid concern. They should have done this during week ONE of Afghanistan, and Iraq. I know I don't want another one of those.
(edit) Yesterday, NPR was talking about Candidate Obama vs. President Obama, and pointed out Candidate Obama's statements about ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR. They discussed, at length, prior presidents assumption of power, Obama's use of it and how guest couldn't imagine a new president opposed to a power like this giving it up. So, maybe you should watch some NBC, ABC, CBS and listen to some NPR. Mind you, in FPs defense, I spent 16 hours in the car since this all started, so I've probably heard every story...
Jaden, Willow, Will and Jada
Oprah-and-will-smith-family-
Will Smith Will Smith prepares
will smith family pictures
will smith and family-2852
will smith; jada pinkett smith
will smith family photo. will
will smith family guy. will
will smith family pictures.
Expect the overt US involvement to rapidly scale back soon.
Did Ronald Reagan get a go-ahead from Congress in 1986 for attacking Libya?
No he did not. It was a mistake then, it is a mistake now. The only difference is, I oppose it in all circumstances, regardless of who's president. You only oppose it when it's a Republican in office.
Wait a second. Wait a second. You are trying to compare the media's portrayal of GWB over about SEVEN years, TWO wars, and HOW MANY lies to Libya and less then ONE WEEK. The Lybia thing has been going on for about a day or so. In the FIRST days of the Afghanistan war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? In the FIRST days of the Iraq war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? Democrats were falling all over themselves to support the President and the need to get those WMDs, which is why after almost 6 years, it was a defining issue of the presidential campaign. The candidates 5 years later were all explaining why they supported one war then, but not now after all the lies were exposed, or how they were against it all along. Not to mention Afghanistan after 7 years. There were a few, unlike now, where there are a lot.
This is THE FIRST WEEK of this thing, and NBC nightly news had their entire story about: criticism from congress; inability of white house to deal with that problem, partly because in Brazil; late involvement; involvement here but not in Somalia, Congo, etc..., risk that Ghaddafi would survive this and remain in power; lack of real Arab support and weak coalition; and fact that opposition is disorganized, poorly armed and leaderless, and probably won't be able to win without military support on the ground.
That's pretty hard reporting, and I'm very happy Congress is being critical. Almost everything Fivepoint, the GOP and the Democrats who are speaking out have said is a valid concern. They should have done this during week ONE of Afghanistan, and Iraq. I know I don't want another one of those.
(edit) Yesterday, NPR was talking about Candidate Obama vs. President Obama, and pointed out Candidate Obama's statements about ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR. They discussed, at length, prior presidents assumption of power, Obama's use of it and how guest couldn't imagine a new president opposed to a power like this giving it up. So, maybe you should watch some NBC, ABC, CBS and listen to some NPR. Mind you, in FPs defense, I spent 16 hours in the car since this all started, so I've probably heard every story...
CaptMurdock
Mar 22, 07:02 AM
Fox News, huh?
That reminds me -- I gotta put some pine cleaner down my toilet.
That reminds me -- I gotta put some pine cleaner down my toilet.
satkin2
Apr 7, 11:43 AM
I can understand the debate about graphics and processors having positive and negative affects for folks who use Airs for work etc;
But how would this affect average Mac users, the people who walk into the store, see iLife and the other standard Mac features, and walk out with a MacBook Air.
How would it impact running iTunes. From a graphics perspective, how would it impact the export of say an hours home made movie in iMovie? (Quite a long process on my 08 Macbook).
But how would this affect average Mac users, the people who walk into the store, see iLife and the other standard Mac features, and walk out with a MacBook Air.
How would it impact running iTunes. From a graphics perspective, how would it impact the export of say an hours home made movie in iMovie? (Quite a long process on my 08 Macbook).
Multimedia
Aug 22, 08:19 AM
This ComputerWorld Review is far less restrained than the ArsTechnica moderate take:
Hands on: The new Mac Pro is 'one screamer' (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9002545&pageNumber=4)
You could say they are gushing over it. Looks like a home run in the PC world. Gonna get a ton of switchers - even if they only ever run Windows XP on it. Next question will be "Oh you have a Mac Pro. What OS are you running on it?"
Answer: Whatever works for the job. :p
Hands on: The new Mac Pro is 'one screamer' (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9002545&pageNumber=4)
You could say they are gushing over it. Looks like a home run in the PC world. Gonna get a ton of switchers - even if they only ever run Windows XP on it. Next question will be "Oh you have a Mac Pro. What OS are you running on it?"
Answer: Whatever works for the job. :p
bibbz
Jun 15, 11:36 AM
Se after some clarification, heres the process...
We cant guarantee you a phone, but if you "reserve" and have a pin number, you will get a phone. We just cant make a promise, guarantee, or anything like that per apple.
The same still applies, if we take 10 pins, we get 10 phones.
We cant guarantee you a phone, but if you "reserve" and have a pin number, you will get a phone. We just cant make a promise, guarantee, or anything like that per apple.
The same still applies, if we take 10 pins, we get 10 phones.
k995
Mar 23, 04:13 AM
Also, your ignorance and arrogance didn't let you understand my point. Every new version of Office, specially the Windows version, requires a bigger and faster computer to run. And when you compare features, there's no real gain from one version to the next, just nice looking colors and animations, which are a waste of processor speed.
Go learn some manners, and mature at least a little. Idiots like you shouldn't be allowed in these forums.
And every new version of itunes requires a bigger and faster computer to run, your point? Hardware moves on , every companys takes advantage of that.
office 2010 runs fine on older hardware just like windows 7 does. I would suggest you tr it out yourself before making such statements. Office 2010 runs fine on my 5 year old computer my wife uses.
Go learn some manners, and mature at least a little. Idiots like you shouldn't be allowed in these forums.
And every new version of itunes requires a bigger and faster computer to run, your point? Hardware moves on , every companys takes advantage of that.
office 2010 runs fine on older hardware just like windows 7 does. I would suggest you tr it out yourself before making such statements. Office 2010 runs fine on my 5 year old computer my wife uses.
rawdigits
Sep 13, 08:57 AM
I guess I'll wait until Tigerton. I want to buy a merom MBP when it comes out.
The architecture of Tigerton is without the Frontside Bus. More in direction of AMD. Much more efficiency than put just 8 Cores to the 1.3 FSB. Clovertown alos has slower RAM.
:rolleyes:
The architecture of Tigerton is without the Frontside Bus. More in direction of AMD. Much more efficiency than put just 8 Cores to the 1.3 FSB. Clovertown alos has slower RAM.
:rolleyes:
mygoldens
Apr 27, 08:22 AM
Ok, somebody go slap the lawyers that are initiating the lawsuit!
Apple tracking everyone, ya right, like they have to?!
Apple tracking everyone, ya right, like they have to?!
blackburn
Mar 26, 05:45 AM
I still don't get it, why do we apple users have to pay for os updates? The hardware is already expensive as hell.
mcrain
Mar 17, 02:03 PM
OK, I confess, "shut down" was a slight exaggeration.
Actually, not at all.
NAPOLITANO: Would it be good fiscally and philosophically if the government did shut down for a few weeks and the American people could see life would go on without the federal government for a little while?
PAUL: I don’t think it would hurt one bit. If an individual can’t pay their rent on time, they might ask their landholder to say “look, I’ll be there next week.” They adjust. The owner and the renter adjust. This is the way the government should adjust. If they can’t pay their bills, wait. But they are afraid the world would panic and the world would come to an end. But it would be an admission that we’re in big trouble. But we are in big trouble. But to deny it and to continue to spend and continue to inflate and waiting for the bond bubble to burst, that doesn’t make sense to me.
will smith family guy. will
WILL SMITH FAMILY KICKS IT AT
Will Smith And Family
The Smith Family (L to R: Jada
will smith family pictures
Actually, not at all.
NAPOLITANO: Would it be good fiscally and philosophically if the government did shut down for a few weeks and the American people could see life would go on without the federal government for a little while?
PAUL: I don’t think it would hurt one bit. If an individual can’t pay their rent on time, they might ask their landholder to say “look, I’ll be there next week.” They adjust. The owner and the renter adjust. This is the way the government should adjust. If they can’t pay their bills, wait. But they are afraid the world would panic and the world would come to an end. But it would be an admission that we’re in big trouble. But we are in big trouble. But to deny it and to continue to spend and continue to inflate and waiting for the bond bubble to burst, that doesn’t make sense to me.
MacsRgr8
Jul 20, 02:28 PM
Have you ever owned a machine that hasn't been CPU bound? I know I haven't.
Probably Single CPU bound....
It will be gr8 being able to get 8 cores in a Mac, but if the software dosn't use it....
Someone already mentioned that it also gives you the possibility to use those cores by using many apps at once. This is true, but I wonder how many often you will actually use all those cores at once.
Let's hope the "opposite of Hyperthreading" will come along (Leopard feature???).. So, instead of a "emulating" a Dual Core / CPU config (like on later Pentium 4's), emulate a Single CPU on multiple cores. :cool:
Then, you get 8 * 3 GHz = 1 * 24 GHz...!!!
Probably Single CPU bound....
It will be gr8 being able to get 8 cores in a Mac, but if the software dosn't use it....
Someone already mentioned that it also gives you the possibility to use those cores by using many apps at once. This is true, but I wonder how many often you will actually use all those cores at once.
Let's hope the "opposite of Hyperthreading" will come along (Leopard feature???).. So, instead of a "emulating" a Dual Core / CPU config (like on later Pentium 4's), emulate a Single CPU on multiple cores. :cool:
Then, you get 8 * 3 GHz = 1 * 24 GHz...!!!
babyj
Nov 28, 07:57 PM
This isn't a new story - at least one of the major labels was talking about wanting a payment for every iPod sold prior to the last round of contract deals.
Their reasoning was nothing to do with the blank tape / copied music argument - they said that their music was driving sales of iPods so they deserved a cut of iPod profits from Apple.
How they said it with a straight face I'll never know.
This isn't about getting money to the artists that deserve it, this is all about increasing the profits of the major record labels. They don't give a damn about anything, certainly not their artists, they just care about their own profit.
Though I think their biggest problem is that they have looked in to the future and have realised that it doesn't include them and they are worried. Who needs record labels with digital distribution? How long before a major artist signs a deal directly with a digital shop or distributor and cuts out the record label?
Their reasoning was nothing to do with the blank tape / copied music argument - they said that their music was driving sales of iPods so they deserved a cut of iPod profits from Apple.
How they said it with a straight face I'll never know.
This isn't about getting money to the artists that deserve it, this is all about increasing the profits of the major record labels. They don't give a damn about anything, certainly not their artists, they just care about their own profit.
Though I think their biggest problem is that they have looked in to the future and have realised that it doesn't include them and they are worried. Who needs record labels with digital distribution? How long before a major artist signs a deal directly with a digital shop or distributor and cuts out the record label?
chrmjenkins
Mar 22, 06:09 PM
A government in power is responding against a rebellion.
If a rebellion sprang up in the United States, our government would respond with force as well.
"Slaughtering his own people" sounds a little propogandish to me. Are you saying that Qaddafi is taking people who have no connection to the rebellion at all and slaughtering them?
How can any government meet armed internal rebellion without qualifying as "slaughtering their own people"?
As others have pointed out, killing a peaceful protester (or non-involved innocent civilian for that matter) is never justified.
If a rebellion sprang up in the United States, our government would respond with force as well.
"Slaughtering his own people" sounds a little propogandish to me. Are you saying that Qaddafi is taking people who have no connection to the rebellion at all and slaughtering them?
How can any government meet armed internal rebellion without qualifying as "slaughtering their own people"?
As others have pointed out, killing a peaceful protester (or non-involved innocent civilian for that matter) is never justified.
barkomatic
Mar 31, 04:00 PM
not when Google blocks handset makers from releasing innovations that would be good for consumers but bad for google. they may have tried to do such strong-arming -- a geo-services company claims it was shut-out by the makers due to google not wanting makers to license optional alternatives to google services.
From the sounds of it, Google is trying to prevent the release of phones that run poorly and are *bad* for consumers. Google is a private company and they can do what they want--just like Apple. Handset makers can go back to their lousy proprietary mobile operating systems--but I really doubt they will. This is a win for consumers in the long run.
It's a temporary lose for those who like to tinker though.
From the sounds of it, Google is trying to prevent the release of phones that run poorly and are *bad* for consumers. Google is a private company and they can do what they want--just like Apple. Handset makers can go back to their lousy proprietary mobile operating systems--but I really doubt they will. This is a win for consumers in the long run.
It's a temporary lose for those who like to tinker though.
applefanDrew
Mar 25, 11:25 PM
I'm really not looking forward to Lion at all. It just seems like a huge step backwards for those of us that use our computers as real computers and not toys. I have an ipad, an iphone and several macs, but they each have specific uses. I don't want my desktop machine to be anything like my ipad, one is for doing real work and doing my daily stuff on, the iOS gadgets are for fun games and browsing mostly.
I LOATH the whole idea of merging OSX and iOS, they shouldn't even be related. I hate how they are ruining expose, I really don't want my stuff groups by app, I want to see every window like it is now. I have no use for "full screen" apps, why would I waste all my screen real estate only showing one thing at a time? I hate the idea of getting programs through the app store on the Mac, I refuse to do that. I hate all the gesture crap going on, sure it's fine for laptop users, but it's of no use to me on my mac pro.
I think all this is just a dumbing down of what is an amazing OS. I don't use my mac with dual displays anything like I'd use an iPad, so why put that crap in there? I just don't like the direction they are taking OSX in general, and I doubt I will upgrade from snow leopard. To me this is very sad news, the day OSX and iOS merge is the day the mac dies.
I'm pretty susre you don't HAVE to use the new stuff. Old expose is still there for instance.
I LOATH the whole idea of merging OSX and iOS, they shouldn't even be related. I hate how they are ruining expose, I really don't want my stuff groups by app, I want to see every window like it is now. I have no use for "full screen" apps, why would I waste all my screen real estate only showing one thing at a time? I hate the idea of getting programs through the app store on the Mac, I refuse to do that. I hate all the gesture crap going on, sure it's fine for laptop users, but it's of no use to me on my mac pro.
I think all this is just a dumbing down of what is an amazing OS. I don't use my mac with dual displays anything like I'd use an iPad, so why put that crap in there? I just don't like the direction they are taking OSX in general, and I doubt I will upgrade from snow leopard. To me this is very sad news, the day OSX and iOS merge is the day the mac dies.
I'm pretty susre you don't HAVE to use the new stuff. Old expose is still there for instance.
bagelche
Apr 5, 09:31 PM
I think it won't be released yet, but they've got it to a strong showable point. Underlying architecture probably relies on a few features tied to Lion (QT stuff and more?). Maybe we'd need to upgrade to Lion for it. Ready to go in June or whenever Lion actually hits.
Eraserhead
Mar 1, 04:27 PM
Fascinating as this insight into a mediaeval mind is, please do remember to use the multi-quote.
http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/buttons/multiquote_off.gif
Well it certainly isn't the Renaissance mind, as Leonardo and Michelangelo were pretty clearly raving homosexuals.
http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/buttons/multiquote_off.gif
Well it certainly isn't the Renaissance mind, as Leonardo and Michelangelo were pretty clearly raving homosexuals.
daze
Aug 27, 12:29 PM
Speaking of wish expectations Multimedia;
I know you're hangin' out for Santa Rosa. The article mentions that it's expected in early 2007. Do you think that would be the date for official announcement of production-standard architecture, or actual availability announcement?
Seems very early to be shipping...
I could go out in September and get a Merom notebook, but I don't mind waiting 6 months for Santa Rosa to hit the street.
Why not wait for the one after Santa Rosa? Then the one after... ;)
I know you're hangin' out for Santa Rosa. The article mentions that it's expected in early 2007. Do you think that would be the date for official announcement of production-standard architecture, or actual availability announcement?
Seems very early to be shipping...
I could go out in September and get a Merom notebook, but I don't mind waiting 6 months for Santa Rosa to hit the street.
Why not wait for the one after Santa Rosa? Then the one after... ;)
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.
AppleScruff1
Apr 19, 08:37 PM
So when is apple going to sue over the letter "i"?
Or how about suing companies for using certain shapes?
This kind of garbage just makes them look petty, just like the youtube videos demonstrating other phone antenna problems.
Motorola had iDEN well before Apple had an iPhone. Apple copied the i just like they did the Beatle's logo. They are he innovators of copying. But it's ok when they do it.
Or how about suing companies for using certain shapes?
This kind of garbage just makes them look petty, just like the youtube videos demonstrating other phone antenna problems.
Motorola had iDEN well before Apple had an iPhone. Apple copied the i just like they did the Beatle's logo. They are he innovators of copying. But it's ok when they do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment