addicted44
Mar 26, 01:15 AM
About the only thing that I find disappointing about this release is the lack of a new filesystem.
I am disappointed about this too. But I am not surprised. Apple's next filesystem was going to be ZFS. But Sun being purchased by Oracle has probably killed any chance of that happening.
The newer Linux FS'es are just not stable enough at the point (or don't do things Apple has somehow managed to bake into HFS+, like the snapshots, and things like directory Hard Links, etc). I don't see Apple moving to any version of ReiserFS or ext#, so I think we are stuck with HFS+ and extensions/improvements of it, until the ZFS situation gets clearer.
I am disappointed about this too. But I am not surprised. Apple's next filesystem was going to be ZFS. But Sun being purchased by Oracle has probably killed any chance of that happening.
The newer Linux FS'es are just not stable enough at the point (or don't do things Apple has somehow managed to bake into HFS+, like the snapshots, and things like directory Hard Links, etc). I don't see Apple moving to any version of ReiserFS or ext#, so I think we are stuck with HFS+ and extensions/improvements of it, until the ZFS situation gets clearer.
azzurri000
Sep 19, 12:28 AM
I think when the update reveals itself to be.... just a mere processor swop the moans to the high heavens would be deafening!
Any likelihood that we will see a new case design at MWSF perchance? :rolleyes:
Haha, sounds like other people's disappointment amuses you. Feeding the fires of anticipation there... I can play along.
Any likelihood that we will see a laptop (NOT notebook) that can actually be used in one's lap without suffering from burns?!
Any likelihood that we will see a new case design at MWSF perchance? :rolleyes:
Haha, sounds like other people's disappointment amuses you. Feeding the fires of anticipation there... I can play along.
Any likelihood that we will see a laptop (NOT notebook) that can actually be used in one's lap without suffering from burns?!
johnnyturbouk
Apr 7, 10:22 PM
Obviously you know little about retail and accounting.
i know even less - enlighten me pls .........;)
i know even less - enlighten me pls .........;)
epitaphic
Sep 13, 12:47 PM
Anyone seen this?
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/1775_large_longtermroadmap.png
The real architecture changes are coming June then June then June 2012. With derivatives in the years between.
So Merom(Merom Santa Rosa)/Conroe/Woodcrest(Clovertown) are the end of the road of separate chips. No more mobile/desktop/sever chip... all are the same (should expect mobiles to have the lowest MHz, then desktop, then toping out with server)
And what's interesting is that each architecture change will be a leap in performance similar to Pentium D to Conroe transition. (source) (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2649)
Screw Tigerton, Penryn's next (probably June 2007)
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/1775_large_longtermroadmap.png
The real architecture changes are coming June then June then June 2012. With derivatives in the years between.
So Merom(Merom Santa Rosa)/Conroe/Woodcrest(Clovertown) are the end of the road of separate chips. No more mobile/desktop/sever chip... all are the same (should expect mobiles to have the lowest MHz, then desktop, then toping out with server)
And what's interesting is that each architecture change will be a leap in performance similar to Pentium D to Conroe transition. (source) (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2649)
Screw Tigerton, Penryn's next (probably June 2007)
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))
ATD
Sep 13, 03:20 PM
A lot of 3d programs will use as many cores as are available when rendering.
And I would say that the next versions of many programs will be better suited for multiple core processors.* They are way too common for software developers to ignore them any longer.
Yep. Not all of the software I use taps all the cores but the 3D renders I do shallow every inch of the CPUs. I have Maya with Mental Ray hooked to 2 computers, a quad and a dual. When I hit render the CPU usage hits 100% on all 6 processors. While having all these processors working is great I have noticed that my quad has lots of pauses in the finder doing simple things, even if nothing is running. Everyone else I know that has a quad has the same issue. I have to believe that there is a trade off for having all these processors, it seems they trip over each other on the small stuff. I hope the next version of OSX will take a look at this, in light of the fact we will be jumping to 8 or more processors.
And I would say that the next versions of many programs will be better suited for multiple core processors.* They are way too common for software developers to ignore them any longer.
Yep. Not all of the software I use taps all the cores but the 3D renders I do shallow every inch of the CPUs. I have Maya with Mental Ray hooked to 2 computers, a quad and a dual. When I hit render the CPU usage hits 100% on all 6 processors. While having all these processors working is great I have noticed that my quad has lots of pauses in the finder doing simple things, even if nothing is running. Everyone else I know that has a quad has the same issue. I have to believe that there is a trade off for having all these processors, it seems they trip over each other on the small stuff. I hope the next version of OSX will take a look at this, in light of the fact we will be jumping to 8 or more processors.
bigandy
Jul 14, 03:52 PM
the size and weight of the power supply makes it damn stupid to put in the top.
top heavy is just idiotic.
i'd love to see dual optical drive bays and the same basic design as the G5. it's a great design, so why the need for change in the first place... :rolleyes:
top heavy is just idiotic.
i'd love to see dual optical drive bays and the same basic design as the G5. it's a great design, so why the need for change in the first place... :rolleyes:
artpease
Aug 5, 06:14 PM
Point is, without an IR sensor in the display, you wouldn't have the OPTION of hiding the computer away.
Yes, but just my opinion, Apple needs to get over this 'Only new computers get FrontRow' crap and provide a USB repeater. Geez, people aren't buying new computers to get FrontRow, they're buying them to get Intel, so providing FrontRow to legacy systems isn't going to cripple sales! The only error in that opinion might be the mini, both the G4 and Intel minis are so crippled, neither makes any sense in a home theater setting but, providing a USB repeater for the G4 mini might effect a few Intel mini sales.
Yes, but just my opinion, Apple needs to get over this 'Only new computers get FrontRow' crap and provide a USB repeater. Geez, people aren't buying new computers to get FrontRow, they're buying them to get Intel, so providing FrontRow to legacy systems isn't going to cripple sales! The only error in that opinion might be the mini, both the G4 and Intel minis are so crippled, neither makes any sense in a home theater setting but, providing a USB repeater for the G4 mini might effect a few Intel mini sales.
parapup
Mar 31, 04:03 PM
Google/Android can't win in Gruber and his follower's minds. If they control to reduce UI variations - it's not OPEN anymore. If they don't control then there are complaints about carrier crapware. Either way Gruber and co. exist to move the goal posts to suit their cult. iOS has favorable numbers - numbers FTW!! Oh wait that's no longer true - numbers hardly matter!! Android has UI variances because of lack of Google control - BAAAD stuff! Google is putting control in place to promote more uniformity - GAAAWWD AWFUL BAIT and SWITCH!!
So nothing to see here, move along.
So nothing to see here, move along.
logandzwon
Apr 19, 02:51 PM
The First Commercial GUI
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5659/star1vg.gif
Xerox's Star workstation was the first commercial implementation of the graphical user interface. The Star was introduced in 1981 and was the inspiration for the Mac and all the other GUIs that followed.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7892/leopardpreviewdesktop4.jpghttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5733/xerox8010star.gif
-The Star was not a commercial product. Xerox didn't sell them. (Well eventually they did, but not as PCs. they were to be similar to what we'd call a terminal today.)
-the middle image is actually of an Apple Lisa. I think you were just showing as a comparison, but some people might think your saying it's a Star. It's not. It's a Lisa.
-Apple compensated Xerox for the ideas borrowed from the Star. SJ and the mac team were already working on the GUI before any of them ever saw the Star though. Also, Macintosh 1 wasn't a copy of the Star. In fact a lot of the stables of a modern GUI today were innovated by Apple for the Macintosh.
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5659/star1vg.gif
Xerox's Star workstation was the first commercial implementation of the graphical user interface. The Star was introduced in 1981 and was the inspiration for the Mac and all the other GUIs that followed.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7892/leopardpreviewdesktop4.jpghttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5733/xerox8010star.gif
-The Star was not a commercial product. Xerox didn't sell them. (Well eventually they did, but not as PCs. they were to be similar to what we'd call a terminal today.)
-the middle image is actually of an Apple Lisa. I think you were just showing as a comparison, but some people might think your saying it's a Star. It's not. It's a Lisa.
-Apple compensated Xerox for the ideas borrowed from the Star. SJ and the mac team were already working on the GUI before any of them ever saw the Star though. Also, Macintosh 1 wasn't a copy of the Star. In fact a lot of the stables of a modern GUI today were innovated by Apple for the Macintosh.
unlinked
Apr 6, 02:28 PM
I guess it wouldn't hurt their future sales to announce international release dates. Several people I know have ordered or bought an iPad 2 simply because it is available (even with order backlogs) compared to Honeycomb tablets.
Here in continental Europe, all I saw so far was an announcement for the second quarter, which can slip to whenever...
Those of you who already got it - is it worth the wait?
I'm thinking of passing on the Xoom at this stage and picking up one of the many other honeycomb tablets instead. Apparently the EEE pad transformer will be launched in Europe in a few days. I saw some reports the Xoom was launched in Canada today with only a few hundred units available. Bit of a joke really.
Here in continental Europe, all I saw so far was an announcement for the second quarter, which can slip to whenever...
Those of you who already got it - is it worth the wait?
I'm thinking of passing on the Xoom at this stage and picking up one of the many other honeycomb tablets instead. Apparently the EEE pad transformer will be launched in Europe in a few days. I saw some reports the Xoom was launched in Canada today with only a few hundred units available. Bit of a joke really.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 1, 04:13 AM
You can condemn me to Hell if you want to, I'm still gonna bump uglies with my girlfriend.
On another note, please join us in the 21st century. Why is it so important to you what other people do? Wouldn't it be very crowded in Heaven if everyone did as you said?
I have no right to condemn anyone to hell.
If heaven were very crowded, it wouldn't be very heavenly, would it?
On another note, please join us in the 21st century. Why is it so important to you what other people do? Wouldn't it be very crowded in Heaven if everyone did as you said?
I have no right to condemn anyone to hell.
If heaven were very crowded, it wouldn't be very heavenly, would it?
ECUpirate44
Apr 27, 08:56 AM
Poo. I really wanted to see my tracking info. Why is it doing this?
283165
283165
milo
Jul 27, 03:39 PM
It's always a little alarming when a post starts "sorry if I missed it but..."
This is a positively thoughtless remark. No one's cheering the MHz myth on, in fact, Intel itself has abandoned the concept. Until the 3Ghz woodies get dropped in a MacPro, the 2.7 GHZ G5 will still be the fastest chip ever put in a Macintosh. I have a dual core Pentium D in a bastard Mac at the house, it runs at 3.8 GHz. I'm pretty sure that even it is slower in a lot of areas than these Core 2's. So no, you're absolutely wrong, the MHz myth is all but dead.
The 2.7 G5 will be the highest clocked chip in a mac for a while, but probably not the fastest. In a number of benchmarks, Yonah has already beaten dual G5's, the conroes and woodrests will likely widen the gap even more.
This is a positively thoughtless remark. No one's cheering the MHz myth on, in fact, Intel itself has abandoned the concept. Until the 3Ghz woodies get dropped in a MacPro, the 2.7 GHZ G5 will still be the fastest chip ever put in a Macintosh. I have a dual core Pentium D in a bastard Mac at the house, it runs at 3.8 GHz. I'm pretty sure that even it is slower in a lot of areas than these Core 2's. So no, you're absolutely wrong, the MHz myth is all but dead.
The 2.7 G5 will be the highest clocked chip in a mac for a while, but probably not the fastest. In a number of benchmarks, Yonah has already beaten dual G5's, the conroes and woodrests will likely widen the gap even more.
KnightWRX
Apr 20, 02:11 PM
Of course, had the case been deemed totally unfounded by Apple Legal and their bunch of advisors, it wouldn't have been brought to court at all.
At the same time, if there is any chance that the case has some merit, a company will sue for sure, if points 1 and 2 above are not considered to do more damage than good.
There is probably some merit to some of the claims, so are probably more ambitious and some are probably completely sure to get thrown out. The thing is, the more claims they throw in there the better they have a footing for eventual settlement negotiations.
Just like you never open with your lowest price, you never open with only the claims you are 100% sure are going to win. ;)
At the same time, if there is any chance that the case has some merit, a company will sue for sure, if points 1 and 2 above are not considered to do more damage than good.
There is probably some merit to some of the claims, so are probably more ambitious and some are probably completely sure to get thrown out. The thing is, the more claims they throw in there the better they have a footing for eventual settlement negotiations.
Just like you never open with your lowest price, you never open with only the claims you are 100% sure are going to win. ;)
digitalbiker
Aug 27, 12:01 PM
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.
While I don't disagree with what you have said, I also think this PC Mag Poll may be a little misrepresentive of the current situation.
This is a readers poll from PC Mag users, I wonder how many are Mac users compared to PC users.
Second, they also state that Apple users are so fanatical and anti-pc that they are worried that they tend to exagerate the poll numbers in favor of Apple.
Third, the only less-subjective bit of information was the repair percentage numbers and the numbers they used were for last year (2005), so they would not reflect any problems with the new mac-intel machines. It seems like most of the issues currently being discussed are with the Mac-Intels.
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.
While I don't disagree with what you have said, I also think this PC Mag Poll may be a little misrepresentive of the current situation.
This is a readers poll from PC Mag users, I wonder how many are Mac users compared to PC users.
Second, they also state that Apple users are so fanatical and anti-pc that they are worried that they tend to exagerate the poll numbers in favor of Apple.
Third, the only less-subjective bit of information was the repair percentage numbers and the numbers they used were for last year (2005), so they would not reflect any problems with the new mac-intel machines. It seems like most of the issues currently being discussed are with the Mac-Intels.
nagromme
Aug 7, 04:08 PM
I'm kinda bummed that even with Vista sneaking up that Aqua hasn't changed much.
Aqua is great and doesn't NEED to change much--it badly needs to be gone over for consistency, but it's already light years ahead of Vista in consistency, looks (MS loves clutter), and most importantly, functionality. Change for change's sake can be fun, but it can also get in the way.
That said, I think we haven't seen all the changes that next year will bring.
Anyway, Vista is not "sneaking up"... it still looks like a fiasco that nothing can save. It will sell well even so--that's a monopoly for you--but it doesn't threaten Tiger, much less Leopard (which we haven't even seen all of yet).
Aqua is great and doesn't NEED to change much--it badly needs to be gone over for consistency, but it's already light years ahead of Vista in consistency, looks (MS loves clutter), and most importantly, functionality. Change for change's sake can be fun, but it can also get in the way.
That said, I think we haven't seen all the changes that next year will bring.
Anyway, Vista is not "sneaking up"... it still looks like a fiasco that nothing can save. It will sell well even so--that's a monopoly for you--but it doesn't threaten Tiger, much less Leopard (which we haven't even seen all of yet).
DJMastaWes
Aug 26, 10:12 PM
No. its usually by 6AM Pacific 9AM Eastern. I KNOW - not guessing.
Well, this was not the case for the BT Mighty Mouse.
Anyway, I'm hopeing that we see Merom in a the next few days. That would make me JUMP for joy!
Well, this was not the case for the BT Mighty Mouse.
Anyway, I'm hopeing that we see Merom in a the next few days. That would make me JUMP for joy!
Leoff
Sep 19, 06:12 AM
What's funny is that even if new MacBooks and MacBook Pros were released tomorrow with the newer Merom chip, 90% of you folks in here wouldn't notice a difference in your daily computing. You would not say "OMG, this 64 bit processing and extra .16Ghz speed is AWESOME!!! I can't BELIEVE I lived without this for so long!!!" You wouldn't even notice unless someone told you.
WildCowboy
Aug 15, 01:04 PM
has adobe dropped any hints as to when CS3 will be available
In March they were saying (http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/23/adobe-chizen-earnings_cz_dal_0324adobe.html?partner=links) the second quarter of next year.
In March they were saying (http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/23/adobe-chizen-earnings_cz_dal_0324adobe.html?partner=links) the second quarter of next year.
toddybody
Apr 6, 11:13 AM
agreed completely.
Sorry, but the only valid gripe with SB is the IGP. CPU wise its going to be a great refresh*
*that said, Im one of those weird folks who DO care about the GPU still:(
Sorry, but the only valid gripe with SB is the IGP. CPU wise its going to be a great refresh*
*that said, Im one of those weird folks who DO care about the GPU still:(
SPUY767
Aug 17, 10:48 AM
I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?
Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.
The vague manner in which they described the test, it seems like this may have been more of an I/O problem than a processing one. Can't say for sure.
Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.
The vague manner in which they described the test, it seems like this may have been more of an I/O problem than a processing one. Can't say for sure.
ugp
Jun 11, 09:23 AM
I'm on a conf call and just got word about the early openings. As soon as i get to work in a minute ill post all the info i have. :)
Please let me know ASAP! :D
Please let me know ASAP! :D
Silentwave
Jul 14, 05:34 PM
It's worth noting that Intel has shipped P4-series chips at 3.4GHz. But the new chips (Woodcrest and Conroe) aren't being sold at speeds above 3GHz.
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
Quarter 4 this year will see the X6900 conroe extreme at 3.2GHz.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
There have already been technology briefings from Intel that talk about 4-core chips in early and 32-core chips by 2010. Similar offerings are expected from AMD.
And the Xeon-MP series processors (which will, of course, eventually get all this tech) are designed with 8-way SMP in mind. A theoretical Xeon-MP based on this 32-core tech would produce a system with 256 cores. Of course, it is doubtful that anything other than a large server would be able to take proper advantage of this, so I wouldn't ever expect to find one on a desktop.
8 core should be out sometime between end of 2006 and beginning of 2007 with the quad core Clovertown processors (based on woodcrest) available in dual chip configurations. And it'll only get better from there.
Which reminds me, though slightly OT... this is a good reason why iMac may well get Conroe now or perhaps get Merom now but transition to a desktop chip by the time Santa Rosa comes out. The new chipset/socket means new logic board, and by the time that comes out the Kenstfield quad core chips on the consumer desktop end will start arriving. I don't yet know how far kentsfield will be scaling either up or down as far as clock speed/heat, but if quad core starts moving into the consumer dekstop market, they will need a very powerful processor: either Conroe or Kentsfield.
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
Quarter 4 this year will see the X6900 conroe extreme at 3.2GHz.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
There have already been technology briefings from Intel that talk about 4-core chips in early and 32-core chips by 2010. Similar offerings are expected from AMD.
And the Xeon-MP series processors (which will, of course, eventually get all this tech) are designed with 8-way SMP in mind. A theoretical Xeon-MP based on this 32-core tech would produce a system with 256 cores. Of course, it is doubtful that anything other than a large server would be able to take proper advantage of this, so I wouldn't ever expect to find one on a desktop.
8 core should be out sometime between end of 2006 and beginning of 2007 with the quad core Clovertown processors (based on woodcrest) available in dual chip configurations. And it'll only get better from there.
Which reminds me, though slightly OT... this is a good reason why iMac may well get Conroe now or perhaps get Merom now but transition to a desktop chip by the time Santa Rosa comes out. The new chipset/socket means new logic board, and by the time that comes out the Kenstfield quad core chips on the consumer desktop end will start arriving. I don't yet know how far kentsfield will be scaling either up or down as far as clock speed/heat, but if quad core starts moving into the consumer dekstop market, they will need a very powerful processor: either Conroe or Kentsfield.