QCassidy352
Aug 15, 01:12 PM
oh WOW. Considering that a single 1.67 G4 beats a dual 2.0 core duo in photoshop when the core duo has to use rosetta, the fact that the xeon is nearly even is amazing. That thing is going to be amazing when CS3 comes out! :eek:
kiljoy616
Mar 26, 01:40 AM
Dam I just got updating Windows 7 SP1:( just two weeks ago and Apple already has a new OS coming out. What is MS doing over there in Washington oh yeah using one hand. :p
Amazing Iceman
Mar 31, 05:28 PM
I really do think that Android/Windows is a good comparison. At least, in terms of getting Android out there on as many different phones as possible. And while that certainly worked, it doesn't really mean that Android is the best OS because it is slightly different depending on the hardware it is on. Which brings up a clear advantage of iOS: It's written specifically for the hardware it is on.
What matters most is quality, not quantity... right?
What matters most is quality, not quantity... right?
mikethebigo
Apr 6, 01:28 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Motorola doesn't "get" tablets yet, but the G1 didn't sell well either. Let's look at the market again in two years, I bet it'll look a lot different.
Motorola doesn't "get" tablets yet, but the G1 didn't sell well either. Let's look at the market again in two years, I bet it'll look a lot different.
Boomchukalaka
Apr 6, 03:15 PM
YEP...over 100,000 people bought a Xoom...and clearly half of them will be on this forum telling everybody how much better it is than the iPad...;)
fastlane1588
Jul 27, 12:19 PM
thats a pretty cool concept i must say
REDolution
Apr 12, 12:49 PM
This was a very good blog post.
I agree, great read
I agree, great read
typecase
Sep 19, 12:33 AM
All I have to say is:
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
Amen! :)
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
Amen! :)
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 6, 06:39 PM
I got an 03 Lotus Elise :rolleyes:
Its a nice car, i just have no use for it. Idk if there are Lotus-only races later on so i didnt sell it yet.
I noticed in my garage that theres an option for sharing cars online. I havent read the GT5 manual so i have no idea what it does, but i assume it would allow my PSN friends to drive my cars if i'm not using them. I shared my Citroen, if someone is logged on later check the Online tab of your garage and see if its there. Just dont put too many miles on it ;)
Its a nice car, i just have no use for it. Idk if there are Lotus-only races later on so i didnt sell it yet.
I noticed in my garage that theres an option for sharing cars online. I havent read the GT5 manual so i have no idea what it does, but i assume it would allow my PSN friends to drive my cars if i'm not using them. I shared my Citroen, if someone is logged on later check the Online tab of your garage and see if its there. Just dont put too many miles on it ;)
Brandon4692
Jun 21, 09:55 PM
I've been reading this whole post and I'm finally gonna chime in. I went into my local radioshack the day of pre orders/request and they took down my info and tried getting me a pin... They called me back the next day saying they couldn't get any. But their website says they will have the iPhone 4 "coming soon" so I'm nervous about if they will have some at launch so I went to the same store and the idiot behind the counter had no clue about what he was talking about (different guy than before) he said to try on Thursday cause they won't know till actually Thursday if/when they will get them. I may be an idiot for trusting radioshack but I want to trade in my 3GS so... I'll be waiting outside of my radioshack atleast an hour before they open on Thursday. Wish me luck!
ZoomZoomZoom
Sep 19, 10:02 AM
You should thouroughly read a post before you quote and attempt to disprove it, or in this case, call the poster a name like fanboy...
The poster before you mentioned how these "sub-$1000" laptops are JUST starting to ship THIS WEEK, not a month ago as you claim. If Apple were to release new MBP on Monday and announce them as "shipping today," then Apple would only mere days behind, not a month.
P.S. If you skipped to the end of this post again and are about to reply angrily, please go back and read the post as you will better understand what I am trying to say...
I found information on another forum and read it a bit incorrectly.
Nonetheless, even after re-reading sources (which a quick google of "shipping merom laptop" will bring up), Apple is at minimum a week and a half behind, assuming that shipping in blindingly fast. And seeing as they didn't update MBPs today - and (assuming rumors are correct) they might update next week, this puts Apple a solid two and a half weeks behind.
And that's on sub-$1000 notebooks.
The poster before you mentioned how these "sub-$1000" laptops are JUST starting to ship THIS WEEK, not a month ago as you claim. If Apple were to release new MBP on Monday and announce them as "shipping today," then Apple would only mere days behind, not a month.
P.S. If you skipped to the end of this post again and are about to reply angrily, please go back and read the post as you will better understand what I am trying to say...
I found information on another forum and read it a bit incorrectly.
Nonetheless, even after re-reading sources (which a quick google of "shipping merom laptop" will bring up), Apple is at minimum a week and a half behind, assuming that shipping in blindingly fast. And seeing as they didn't update MBPs today - and (assuming rumors are correct) they might update next week, this puts Apple a solid two and a half weeks behind.
And that's on sub-$1000 notebooks.
backdraft
Jul 29, 05:57 PM
well I'd rather see a ppc update...
DStaal
Sep 13, 09:12 AM
A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.
Mac OS X distributes threads and processes across cores/CPUs to optimize performance already. (Subject to some limitations, as noted already.)
Many Mac programs which can benifit from mutiple threads already use this, and will automatically get boosts from 8 cores depending on the amount of cocurrency they support.
On the other hand, not everything is suitable for cocurrent execution. Photoshop editing an image would love to have a core per pixel. BBEdit couldn't care less, most likely. It all depends on what you are doing.
Plenty of Mac software would use the extra cores, if they were avalible.
(Note: I keep specifying 'Mac' here. There is a reason. Windows isn't as good at multithreading/processing yet...)
Mac OS X distributes threads and processes across cores/CPUs to optimize performance already. (Subject to some limitations, as noted already.)
Many Mac programs which can benifit from mutiple threads already use this, and will automatically get boosts from 8 cores depending on the amount of cocurrency they support.
On the other hand, not everything is suitable for cocurrent execution. Photoshop editing an image would love to have a core per pixel. BBEdit couldn't care less, most likely. It all depends on what you are doing.
Plenty of Mac software would use the extra cores, if they were avalible.
(Note: I keep specifying 'Mac' here. There is a reason. Windows isn't as good at multithreading/processing yet...)
TangoCharlie
Jul 20, 11:40 AM
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)?
edit: quad version of Woodcrest is Clovertown.
Intel has for the last few years restricted the "destop" parts to single socket systems. ** If Intel continues along these lines, then Kentsfield will also be restricted to single socket systems (ie a maximum of 4 cores).
Cloverton, being the "Xeon" equivalent will support multi-socket systems, taking us to the quoted 8 cores for dual-cpu systems.
====
**The Pentium III S was the last "desktop" CPU which could be used in a dual cpu configuration. P4's were always "crippled" to work only in single-cpu systems.
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)?
edit: quad version of Woodcrest is Clovertown.
Intel has for the last few years restricted the "destop" parts to single socket systems. ** If Intel continues along these lines, then Kentsfield will also be restricted to single socket systems (ie a maximum of 4 cores).
Cloverton, being the "Xeon" equivalent will support multi-socket systems, taking us to the quoted 8 cores for dual-cpu systems.
====
**The Pentium III S was the last "desktop" CPU which could be used in a dual cpu configuration. P4's were always "crippled" to work only in single-cpu systems.
rhett7660
Apr 5, 05:19 PM
Problem is, its still Final Cut and will still suck at managing media.
And. You don't know they may have re-done a good chunk of the product to where you have better media managing and it might not even look like FCP as we know it. That of course could be a bad thing or a good thing.
And. You don't know they may have re-done a good chunk of the product to where you have better media managing and it might not even look like FCP as we know it. That of course could be a bad thing or a good thing.
cal6n
Apr 6, 01:41 PM
...suggests that competitors have yet to launch a tablet product to capture consumers' imaginations...
Some masterful understatement there...
Some masterful understatement there...
silverblue3
Aug 26, 07:49 PM
What's the GPU on the new mbp gonna be? Bring on the SLI GPU's ;) Will give alienwares a run for their money.
mashinhead
Aug 20, 06:25 PM
Yeah, now all we have to do is be able to afford it. Wonder what the price point on tigerton or clovertown is going to be.
Yeah thats what i want to know. Because right now i have a dual-core powermac. I'm interested in this mac pro now, if i have huge upgradability options in the future, and also depending on price. I can wait til january, but if all that will happen by then is that there will be a 1K bto clovertown/kentsfield bto, I probably couldn't afford that anyway, and don't want to wait, but if they are going to upgrade everything, to the octo-core chip and prices are around the same, even if they increase, i would wait.
Yeah thats what i want to know. Because right now i have a dual-core powermac. I'm interested in this mac pro now, if i have huge upgradability options in the future, and also depending on price. I can wait til january, but if all that will happen by then is that there will be a 1K bto clovertown/kentsfield bto, I probably couldn't afford that anyway, and don't want to wait, but if they are going to upgrade everything, to the octo-core chip and prices are around the same, even if they increase, i would wait.
odedia
Jul 27, 09:50 AM
Yes. I believe people who have gotten their hands on Core 2 Duo beta chips have put them in their mini's with no difference (except a massive speed boost)
Only the Mac Mini and the iMac's processor can be replaced. the MacBook and MacBook Pro have the processor soldered into the motherboard.
Only the Mac Mini and the iMac's processor can be replaced. the MacBook and MacBook Pro have the processor soldered into the motherboard.
H. Flower
Apr 7, 11:03 PM
All right then, here we are.
This better be good. Or back to AVID, or on to Premiere.
This better be good. Or back to AVID, or on to Premiere.
MacSA
Aug 7, 05:32 PM
As a recent switcher to Mac, I have had a lot of experience with M$'s System Restore function. It is NOT a "go back and find that data I deleted" application. It IS a "can we please go back to a time when this computer wasn't totally ********* up" application.
I know, I cant believe people are comparing it to the sytem restore on Windows... sys restore on my PC is total bollocks and never solved any problem I had.
I know, I cant believe people are comparing it to the sytem restore on Windows... sys restore on my PC is total bollocks and never solved any problem I had.
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:39 PM
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
michaelrjohnson
Jul 27, 10:13 AM
wasn't this announced last friday? (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060721145043.shtml)
Yeah, but it was a line on a report before, and this time there was an "event" of sorts.
Yeah, but it was a line on a report before, and this time there was an "event" of sorts.
bedifferent
Apr 27, 11:13 AM
Maybe you'd prefer discourse where everyone agreed and had the same opinion as you. Maybe some white fluffy bunnies too? ;) I kid.
At the end of the day - an issue was indentified. Apple is responding. Arguing whether or not there is an issue is silly. Arguing whether or not Apple is responding is silly.
That's not addressed to you - but everyone at this point
Civil discourse is great, arguing over silly semantics on an issue when all the facts have not been fully presented seems to be "putting the cart before the horse."
As they say, opinions are like a**holes, everyone has em and they all stink ;)
At the end of the day - an issue was indentified. Apple is responding. Arguing whether or not there is an issue is silly. Arguing whether or not Apple is responding is silly.
That's not addressed to you - but everyone at this point
Civil discourse is great, arguing over silly semantics on an issue when all the facts have not been fully presented seems to be "putting the cart before the horse."
As they say, opinions are like a**holes, everyone has em and they all stink ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment