cloudnine
Jul 14, 04:27 PM
Dual video cards are only used by gamers. I doubt gamers are going to be interested in buying one of these, for the same reason they don't buy other Macs - the software comes out for other platforms first.
What about support for 2 30" cinema displays? You need two video cards to do that, right?
What about support for 2 30" cinema displays? You need two video cards to do that, right?
ghostlyorb
Apr 8, 08:17 AM
How many times does it need to be said, "don't screw around with Apple"?
MacRumors
Aug 25, 02:37 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Over the past month or so, there appears to have been an uptick in user dissatisfaction with Apple's handling of support incidents. While overall satisfaction is extremely hard to gauge due to the fact that typically only disgruntled users notify sites of issues and the uptick could also simply represent Apple's increased marketshare, it does come amongst reports of Apple firing its online forum moderator staff (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2006/07/28.10.shtml) and an Indian support center (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060604190322.shtml) that was shut down as quickly as it was opened. Similarly, many people felt that Apple was ill-prepared for yesterday's 1.8 million battery recall (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060824134647.shtml), as Apple's support site was quickly overloaded with requests and there was a lot of confusion as to what batteries were affected.
This all could, of course be coincidental. Of note, Apple has consistently been a market leader in surveys on customer support (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2006497,00.asp).
Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Apple_Having_Support_Problems)
Over the past month or so, there appears to have been an uptick in user dissatisfaction with Apple's handling of support incidents. While overall satisfaction is extremely hard to gauge due to the fact that typically only disgruntled users notify sites of issues and the uptick could also simply represent Apple's increased marketshare, it does come amongst reports of Apple firing its online forum moderator staff (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2006/07/28.10.shtml) and an Indian support center (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060604190322.shtml) that was shut down as quickly as it was opened. Similarly, many people felt that Apple was ill-prepared for yesterday's 1.8 million battery recall (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060824134647.shtml), as Apple's support site was quickly overloaded with requests and there was a lot of confusion as to what batteries were affected.
This all could, of course be coincidental. Of note, Apple has consistently been a market leader in surveys on customer support (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2006497,00.asp).
Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Apple_Having_Support_Problems)
raymondso
Sep 19, 09:18 AM
0710 PDT - no updates yet - keep counting :-(
1:40 to go :p
1:40 to go :p
ugp
Jun 9, 10:10 PM
I am doing my pre-order without even walking into the Store. The perks of knowing the Manager. He is going to take care of everything for me because I know he wants that SPIFF lol.
For any of your Radio Shack employees does your store plan on opening at 6AM? My friend said for the Evo launch they opened just for Evo customers at 6AM and he doesn't see any reason they would not do this for the iPhone 4 as well.
For any of your Radio Shack employees does your store plan on opening at 6AM? My friend said for the Evo launch they opened just for Evo customers at 6AM and he doesn't see any reason they would not do this for the iPhone 4 as well.
FF_productions
Jul 15, 12:41 AM
Exactly - this is one of the reasons I'm glad Apple is going with a minimum RAM configuration. I'd much rather buy RAM from a reputable 3rd party dealer than have to succumb myself to Apple's significant premiums. Always buy 3rd party, never from Apple. :cool:
Still, it's ridiculous that Apple's Top-Of-The-Line machines don't come STANDARD with 1 gig of ram. I can guarantee they will when they come out next month. If the MacBook Pro's can come with 1 gig of ram standard, the Mac Pro's will too. I cannot wait to see this new Mac Pro, it's new design, it's new everything. I'm getting that countdown widget...
Ok, I just got it
http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/developer/wwdc2006countdown.html
Still, it's ridiculous that Apple's Top-Of-The-Line machines don't come STANDARD with 1 gig of ram. I can guarantee they will when they come out next month. If the MacBook Pro's can come with 1 gig of ram standard, the Mac Pro's will too. I cannot wait to see this new Mac Pro, it's new design, it's new everything. I'm getting that countdown widget...
Ok, I just got it
http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/developer/wwdc2006countdown.html
Bosunsfate
Aug 8, 12:46 AM
Well I for one was kind of disappointed. Leopard is sort of Apple's chance to prove they can out-Vista Vista, and I'm not really sure what we saw today does it. I've been following Vista somewhat closely, and it really does catch Windows up to OS X in terms of features and prettiness.
I really think most of the features shown off today are already present in Windows (I've definitely heard about all of them before) or will be in Vista, and it's too bad Apple didn't have anything truly innovative to show us. Hopefully those secret features are something good...
I have seen plenty of beta Vista versions and they have nothing like Spaces or Time Machine....or frankly anything I saw today.
Why don't you point out something specific rather blather on with such nonsense.
I really think most of the features shown off today are already present in Windows (I've definitely heard about all of them before) or will be in Vista, and it's too bad Apple didn't have anything truly innovative to show us. Hopefully those secret features are something good...
I have seen plenty of beta Vista versions and they have nothing like Spaces or Time Machine....or frankly anything I saw today.
Why don't you point out something specific rather blather on with such nonsense.
Orange-DE
Jul 21, 07:30 AM
Now you just need to decide what color your want your new computer... (again)
Think pINK
Think pINK
dornoforpyros
Sep 13, 07:13 AM
DAMN :eek:
so 2-3 years from now are people going to be asking "do I need a quad core or an 8 core macbook? oh yeah I'll mostly be surfing the web and maybe editing a photo once and a while" :rolleyes:
so 2-3 years from now are people going to be asking "do I need a quad core or an 8 core macbook? oh yeah I'll mostly be surfing the web and maybe editing a photo once and a while" :rolleyes:
xxBURT0Nxx
Apr 9, 09:45 AM
I don't think 2IS is getting that IF Intel allowed Nvidia to continue making sandy bridge chipsets, Nvidia could've easily integrated a 320m successor into the south bridge. This would give you the best of both worlds, the downclocked Low-voltage Intel HD graphics when on battery or basic surfing, or the 320m successor in the south bridge when playing games or aperture photo editing. All this WITHOUT raising the motherboard chip count that putting a separate discrete (on it's own, not integrated into the chipset like 320m) would entail.
I thought the 320m was also integrated? Wouldn't that mean that would be your only graphics card were nvidia allowed to add them to sandy bridge? I don't see why you would have integrated intel hd 3000 along with an integrated 320m (or successor).
I thought the 320m was also integrated? Wouldn't that mean that would be your only graphics card were nvidia allowed to add them to sandy bridge? I don't see why you would have integrated intel hd 3000 along with an integrated 320m (or successor).
hulugu
Mar 23, 12:19 AM
Although I backed the implementation of a no-fly zone a few weeks ago, I wouldn't describe my position as one of wholehearted support. More a queasy half-hearted recognition that something had to be done and that all alternatives lead to rabbit holes of some degree or another. When all is said and done, my usual fallback position is an intense weariness at the evil that men do.
For the record, I actually supported (if silence is considered consent) both Gulf wars at the start; I believed in the fictional WMD, I believed it when Colin Powell held his little vial up at the UN... but I, like many was tied down with work and other concerns and was only paying cursory attention to the news at the time. Like Obama, I also initially supported the war in Afghanistan, or at least the idea of it, initiated by a Republican president, but since then it seems to have become a fiasco of Catch-22 proportions.
Slowly discovering the real agenda and true ineptness of the Bush administration was a pivotal point in my reawakening political understanding of US current affairs after reading Hunter Thompson for so many years. Disgusted and appalled at the casual way in which we all were lied to, I'm quite happy to hold my hands up and say 'I was wrong'.
Thing is about Obama, I never had any starry-eyed notion about him being a peace-maker. He's an American president, the incentives are cemented into the role as one of using power and protecting wealth. Not that many conservatives were paying attention at the time, but he stood up in front of the Nobel academy when accepting his Nobel Peace Prize and laid out a justification for war.
Since the second Gulf War, the entire circus has been one of my occasional interests, because I've never seen a political process elsewhere riddled with so many bald-faced liars, grotesque characters and half-baked casual hate speech. What power or the sniff of it does to people, twisting them out of shape, is infinitely more interesting and has more impact on us than any other endeavour, except for possibly the parallel development of technology.
I used you as an example more out of rhetoric than anything else. However, I think your essay is spot on.
I didn't believe the Bush administration's call for war in Iraq because I was reading Hans Blix's reports and I was suspicious of the whole endeavor: the Bushies struck me as a group wholly unprepared for the difficulty of governing a foreign country after a military invasion. I did hope, like Tom Friedman, that an Iraq without Saddam might be a powerful symbol in the Middle East, but I was deeply concerned about the war.
Reading Anthony Shadid's reporting on Iraq told me that the situation was, days in, already spinning out of control. Once it became apparent that looters were able to steal artifacts from the museums, office chairs pilled with computers from the bureaus and weapons from Iraq's hundreds of ammunition dumps I knew we were in trouble.
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
We have complicated thoughts about the use of force in the world, which leads us to appear hypocritical when all things are made to appear equal to make straw.
George W. Bush is responsible for another calamity: me posting in PRSI, one of my many occasional weaknesses.
Me too. I wandered in here by accident as a new member and haven't left.
For the record, I actually supported (if silence is considered consent) both Gulf wars at the start; I believed in the fictional WMD, I believed it when Colin Powell held his little vial up at the UN... but I, like many was tied down with work and other concerns and was only paying cursory attention to the news at the time. Like Obama, I also initially supported the war in Afghanistan, or at least the idea of it, initiated by a Republican president, but since then it seems to have become a fiasco of Catch-22 proportions.
Slowly discovering the real agenda and true ineptness of the Bush administration was a pivotal point in my reawakening political understanding of US current affairs after reading Hunter Thompson for so many years. Disgusted and appalled at the casual way in which we all were lied to, I'm quite happy to hold my hands up and say 'I was wrong'.
Thing is about Obama, I never had any starry-eyed notion about him being a peace-maker. He's an American president, the incentives are cemented into the role as one of using power and protecting wealth. Not that many conservatives were paying attention at the time, but he stood up in front of the Nobel academy when accepting his Nobel Peace Prize and laid out a justification for war.
Since the second Gulf War, the entire circus has been one of my occasional interests, because I've never seen a political process elsewhere riddled with so many bald-faced liars, grotesque characters and half-baked casual hate speech. What power or the sniff of it does to people, twisting them out of shape, is infinitely more interesting and has more impact on us than any other endeavour, except for possibly the parallel development of technology.
I used you as an example more out of rhetoric than anything else. However, I think your essay is spot on.
I didn't believe the Bush administration's call for war in Iraq because I was reading Hans Blix's reports and I was suspicious of the whole endeavor: the Bushies struck me as a group wholly unprepared for the difficulty of governing a foreign country after a military invasion. I did hope, like Tom Friedman, that an Iraq without Saddam might be a powerful symbol in the Middle East, but I was deeply concerned about the war.
Reading Anthony Shadid's reporting on Iraq told me that the situation was, days in, already spinning out of control. Once it became apparent that looters were able to steal artifacts from the museums, office chairs pilled with computers from the bureaus and weapons from Iraq's hundreds of ammunition dumps I knew we were in trouble.
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
We have complicated thoughts about the use of force in the world, which leads us to appear hypocritical when all things are made to appear equal to make straw.
George W. Bush is responsible for another calamity: me posting in PRSI, one of my many occasional weaknesses.
Me too. I wandered in here by accident as a new member and haven't left.
rezenclowd3
Nov 25, 09:49 PM
I hated Shift, it seemed to me to pretend to be a sim, at the same time acknowledging it was an arcade game. I can't stand AI that will try to get revenge anyway, as that should be black flagged. Race clean or gtfo IMO. If one happens to drive dirty accidentally online, do your own stop and go but let the offended gain your place. If you CAN'T pass cleanly due to skill, always get out of the way like you are being lapped, DO NOT try to defend.
Consultant
Apr 19, 02:06 PM
What annoys me even more is that Apple always seems to make these claims that they made such and such first, and that Windows is copying Mac OS.. What annoys me is if you know a bit of the history you'll find that Apple copied Xerox interface, with permission of course, but it's not like they came up with it first..
Now they are making another claim that Samsung is copying..
WRONG. A lot of modern GUI elements are INVENTED by Apple:
http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/
Now they are making another claim that Samsung is copying..
WRONG. A lot of modern GUI elements are INVENTED by Apple:
http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/
Multimedia
Aug 27, 10:59 AM
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.I don't expect the Santa Rosa setup to be ready before Leopard is next Spring. I was going to wait that long. But hanging out here makes me want something this Fall once Core 2 is in full swing - IE some of it hits the refurb page. :p
I'm thinking 17" MBP or MacBook depending on if MBP has the MB removable easy access HD feature. MacBook is really a bargain @ $949 refurb. I may even go for just a bottom of the line 1.66 GHz C2D refurb mini. But my penchant for spanning says a $949 MacBook at least. I've been a spanner since it became possible in 1986. Find one screen impossably confining - ESP since the 24" is also a TV most of the time thanks to Elgato's amazing EyeTV technologies.
Mac Pro does crush video about 33% faster than this Quad G5 does. Still not fast enough. But significantly faster than I can do it now. But so might the MacBook. I really can't say yet. My mind is in flux. Still have to test Core 2 Duo performance Vs. Mac Pro for my particular video crushing needs. Two bottom of the line Minis may be an option as well.
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.I don't expect the Santa Rosa setup to be ready before Leopard is next Spring. I was going to wait that long. But hanging out here makes me want something this Fall once Core 2 is in full swing - IE some of it hits the refurb page. :p
I'm thinking 17" MBP or MacBook depending on if MBP has the MB removable easy access HD feature. MacBook is really a bargain @ $949 refurb. I may even go for just a bottom of the line 1.66 GHz C2D refurb mini. But my penchant for spanning says a $949 MacBook at least. I've been a spanner since it became possible in 1986. Find one screen impossably confining - ESP since the 24" is also a TV most of the time thanks to Elgato's amazing EyeTV technologies.
Mac Pro does crush video about 33% faster than this Quad G5 does. Still not fast enough. But significantly faster than I can do it now. But so might the MacBook. I really can't say yet. My mind is in flux. Still have to test Core 2 Duo performance Vs. Mac Pro for my particular video crushing needs. Two bottom of the line Minis may be an option as well.
chrmjenkins
Apr 6, 11:36 AM
That isn't what this story reads, and I don't think anyone but you and I have even read the actual facts supposed here.
I actually find this one of the least accurate stories ever posted on MacRumors.com for several reasons... the OP is assuming ULV in the 13" MBA. The OP is assuming that if SB IGP is good enough for MBP it's fine for MBA. There is no rumor or timeframe listing these chips especially not in the 13" MBA. It seems like it's a blatant attempt to stir up activity without any real facts, rumors, or even common knowledge about the chips used in the MBAs.
Certainly the people haven't read the story or they're somehow focusing on the 11" MBA. Sure, this would be fine for the 11" MBA in terms of CPU clock speed but even then it's a gigantic loss in Tue graphics capabilities. That leads to a problem with the author saying good enough for 13" MBP than good enough for MBA. However, the IGP clock speed used in this ULV chip will be nearly a 50% drop in graphics performance. That for me doesn't equate to if this then that...
I am disappointed with MR for even writing such a poor piece of garbage. Forget that I cannot stand the SB IGP... the assumptions made here are absurd! It definitely doesn't warrant this sort of reply from the fans of the MBA. You and I could assailed things all day, but that isn't the story written.
Given Apple's willingness to go with it on the 13", I'm inclined to go with the reasoning that they'll use it here. The argument that it will be a big step down from the 320M is kind of moot given that anyone will say you're crazy if you try to insist that a MBA should be used for anything like gaming or graphical work (read anyone as Apple). You also have to remember that the 320M is downclocked in the MBAs too compared to the 13", so the drop isn't as drastic as you state.
The combination of a lower or equal TDP, a GPU that doesn't need its own heatsink because its integrated into the CPU and the very likely prolonged battery life for the MBA, it's pretty much a done deal for the MBA.
So is that also true for the difference between SV and LV? If that is the case, the Core i7-2649M you cite above (2.3 LV chip) should be faster compared to the 2.3 i5 in the low end Pro 13?
Thanks!
He didn't quite tell the whole story. A LV and ULV chip likely went through different binning as their performance at the same settings varies because the process they are built on varies. The chips that work at the extremes (say Intel's extreme desktop processors or the lowest voltage CPUs they offer) are likely the top performers in their binning tests. Just because a chip can function as a LV doesn't mean it would meet the requirements for ULV, for example. However, if the ULV chip were to be scaled to the LV's parts speed and voltage, it would function just fine.
I actually find this one of the least accurate stories ever posted on MacRumors.com for several reasons... the OP is assuming ULV in the 13" MBA. The OP is assuming that if SB IGP is good enough for MBP it's fine for MBA. There is no rumor or timeframe listing these chips especially not in the 13" MBA. It seems like it's a blatant attempt to stir up activity without any real facts, rumors, or even common knowledge about the chips used in the MBAs.
Certainly the people haven't read the story or they're somehow focusing on the 11" MBA. Sure, this would be fine for the 11" MBA in terms of CPU clock speed but even then it's a gigantic loss in Tue graphics capabilities. That leads to a problem with the author saying good enough for 13" MBP than good enough for MBA. However, the IGP clock speed used in this ULV chip will be nearly a 50% drop in graphics performance. That for me doesn't equate to if this then that...
I am disappointed with MR for even writing such a poor piece of garbage. Forget that I cannot stand the SB IGP... the assumptions made here are absurd! It definitely doesn't warrant this sort of reply from the fans of the MBA. You and I could assailed things all day, but that isn't the story written.
Given Apple's willingness to go with it on the 13", I'm inclined to go with the reasoning that they'll use it here. The argument that it will be a big step down from the 320M is kind of moot given that anyone will say you're crazy if you try to insist that a MBA should be used for anything like gaming or graphical work (read anyone as Apple). You also have to remember that the 320M is downclocked in the MBAs too compared to the 13", so the drop isn't as drastic as you state.
The combination of a lower or equal TDP, a GPU that doesn't need its own heatsink because its integrated into the CPU and the very likely prolonged battery life for the MBA, it's pretty much a done deal for the MBA.
So is that also true for the difference between SV and LV? If that is the case, the Core i7-2649M you cite above (2.3 LV chip) should be faster compared to the 2.3 i5 in the low end Pro 13?
Thanks!
He didn't quite tell the whole story. A LV and ULV chip likely went through different binning as their performance at the same settings varies because the process they are built on varies. The chips that work at the extremes (say Intel's extreme desktop processors or the lowest voltage CPUs they offer) are likely the top performers in their binning tests. Just because a chip can function as a LV doesn't mean it would meet the requirements for ULV, for example. However, if the ULV chip were to be scaled to the LV's parts speed and voltage, it would function just fine.
brammp
Apr 25, 03:40 PM
Except secured
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
ugp
Jun 23, 12:41 PM
If the whole Region down here for Florida only got 139 I doubt Radio Shack got many iPhone 4s at all. Either that or all of them went to the huge Markets like New York and other areas like such.
BGil
Aug 8, 04:32 AM
Have to agree with you on just about everything. If MS tried to release something like this, as anything other than a service pack, their user base would (quite rightly) crucify them.
The TimeMachine mirrors the same functionality that was announced for Vista about a week ago,
It's kinda unfair to say Microsoft just announced PreviousDocs/Shadow Copy "about a week ago" because it's been in every build for the last year.
Winsupersite on build 5219:
Windows Vista build 5219 also includes an integrated Shadow Copy client, which you manage from the Shadow Copies tab of the Properties dialog for your hard drive (Figure). This feature, which first originated in Windows Server lets you cache older versions of data files so that you can recover information in the event of an error. So if you overwrite a critical file, or inadvertently change part of a document, you can "go back in time" and access older versions.
Let's see how this works. First, you need to enable Shadow Copies from the aforementioned dialog. Then, after you've mucked up a file, you can access its Properties dialog in Explorer and navigate to the Previous Versions pane (Figure). Here, you can select between various different versions of the document (and your time travel experience is complete). This is a great feature, and I'm glad to see it being added to the Windows client.
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista-5219-review-26.jpg
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista-5219-review-25.jpg
That build was released in September of 2005.
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_5219.asp
Even before that Bob Muglia, who head the Longhorn Server project, said it would be integrated into NTFS.
MS also ships a shadow copy client for XP.
If anything, Apple has known about Previous Docs for over a year now.
The TimeMachine mirrors the same functionality that was announced for Vista about a week ago,
It's kinda unfair to say Microsoft just announced PreviousDocs/Shadow Copy "about a week ago" because it's been in every build for the last year.
Winsupersite on build 5219:
Windows Vista build 5219 also includes an integrated Shadow Copy client, which you manage from the Shadow Copies tab of the Properties dialog for your hard drive (Figure). This feature, which first originated in Windows Server lets you cache older versions of data files so that you can recover information in the event of an error. So if you overwrite a critical file, or inadvertently change part of a document, you can "go back in time" and access older versions.
Let's see how this works. First, you need to enable Shadow Copies from the aforementioned dialog. Then, after you've mucked up a file, you can access its Properties dialog in Explorer and navigate to the Previous Versions pane (Figure). Here, you can select between various different versions of the document (and your time travel experience is complete). This is a great feature, and I'm glad to see it being added to the Windows client.
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista-5219-review-26.jpg
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista-5219-review-25.jpg
That build was released in September of 2005.
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_5219.asp
Even before that Bob Muglia, who head the Longhorn Server project, said it would be integrated into NTFS.
MS also ships a shadow copy client for XP.
If anything, Apple has known about Previous Docs for over a year now.
NY Guitarist
Apr 5, 08:47 PM
Everything else you said is all well and good, but why on earth would anyone need to download a 4K movie?
4K is coming sooner than later. Youtube has 4K media, of course it looks bad because of the YT compression penalty.
4K displays are coming too, both computer monitors and home theater.
4K is coming sooner than later. Youtube has 4K media, of course it looks bad because of the YT compression penalty.
4K displays are coming too, both computer monitors and home theater.
sososowhat
Sep 13, 09:50 AM
One could run a Folding@Home process on each core :D
enil8tr1
Mar 22, 03:56 PM
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1561238414/tapose-bringing-the-courier-to-the-ipad?ref=recently_launched
Willis
Jul 29, 08:23 AM
Does anyone else find the UK store Shipping times a bit long all of a sudden. theyve been like this since monday i think.
white Macbooks 3 days, iMac 20" 5-7 days?
white Macbooks 3 days, iMac 20" 5-7 days?
ergle2
Sep 15, 12:50 PM
More pedantic details for those who are interested... :)
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
All very true, but beyond that -- if you've ever looked closely VMS and at NT, you'll notice, it's a lot more than just "influenced". The core design was pretty much identical -- the way I/O worked, its interrupt handling, the scheduler, and so on -- they're all practically carbon copies. Some of the names changed, but how things work under the hood hadn't. Since then it's evolved, of course, but you'd expect that.
Quite amusing, really... how a heavyweight enterprise-class OS of the 80's became the desktop of the 00's :)
Those that were around in the dim and distant will recall that VMS and Unix were two of the main competitors in many marketplaces in the 80's and early 90's... and today we have OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. vs XP, W2K3 Server and (soon) Vista -- kind of ironic, dontcha think? :)
Of course, there's a lot still running VMS to this very day. I don't think HP wants them to tho' -- they just sent all the support to India, apparently, to a team with relatively little experience...
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
All very true, but beyond that -- if you've ever looked closely VMS and at NT, you'll notice, it's a lot more than just "influenced". The core design was pretty much identical -- the way I/O worked, its interrupt handling, the scheduler, and so on -- they're all practically carbon copies. Some of the names changed, but how things work under the hood hadn't. Since then it's evolved, of course, but you'd expect that.
Quite amusing, really... how a heavyweight enterprise-class OS of the 80's became the desktop of the 00's :)
Those that were around in the dim and distant will recall that VMS and Unix were two of the main competitors in many marketplaces in the 80's and early 90's... and today we have OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. vs XP, W2K3 Server and (soon) Vista -- kind of ironic, dontcha think? :)
Of course, there's a lot still running VMS to this very day. I don't think HP wants them to tho' -- they just sent all the support to India, apparently, to a team with relatively little experience...
gnasher729
Aug 17, 03:57 AM
[QUOTE=jicon]Lots of stuff on Anandtech about the poor memory performance on the Intel chipset./QUOTE]
FB Dimms are not designed to give maximum bandwidth to one chip, they are designed to give maximum bandwidth to _four_ cores. Instead of having _one_ program running to test memory bandwidth, they should have started four copies of it and see what happens. That is what you have doubled front side bus, buffered memory and two separate memory units for. The biggest criticism in the past against Intel multi-CPU systems was that the memory bandwidth didn't scale; in the Mac Pro, it does.
FB Dimms are not designed to give maximum bandwidth to one chip, they are designed to give maximum bandwidth to _four_ cores. Instead of having _one_ program running to test memory bandwidth, they should have started four copies of it and see what happens. That is what you have doubled front side bus, buffered memory and two separate memory units for. The biggest criticism in the past against Intel multi-CPU systems was that the memory bandwidth didn't scale; in the Mac Pro, it does.