jdminpdx
Apr 8, 01:31 AM
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)
I was at BB yesterday and inquired about buying one. They has them but the manager wouldn't sell me one. He refuses to tell me why and I was told that he was instructed to hault sales temporarily. Hmmm
I was at BB yesterday and inquired about buying one. They has them but the manager wouldn't sell me one. He refuses to tell me why and I was told that he was instructed to hault sales temporarily. Hmmm
shamino
Jul 20, 09:58 AM
No I think you are confused. :) I meant "Is having more cores, lets say 8, more efficient than one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores?"
First of all, you assume that it is possible to make "one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores". I don't think it is possible to do this (at least not with the x86 architecture using today's technology.)
But assuming such a chip exists, the answer depends on what kind of efficiency you're thinking of.
If you mean computational efficiency (meaning the most useful processing per clock-tick), then a single big core will do better. This is because single-threaded apps will be able to use the full power (whereas multiple threads are needed to take advantagte of multiple cores.) Also, the operating system can get rid of the overhead that is needed to keep software running on the multiple cores from stepping on each other.
If you mean energy efficiency (amount of processing per watt of electricity consumed), then it could go either way, depending on how the chips are made. But given today's manufacturing processes and the non-linear power curve that we see as clock speeds are increased, the multiple-core solution will almost definitely use less power.
First of all, you assume that it is possible to make "one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores". I don't think it is possible to do this (at least not with the x86 architecture using today's technology.)
But assuming such a chip exists, the answer depends on what kind of efficiency you're thinking of.
If you mean computational efficiency (meaning the most useful processing per clock-tick), then a single big core will do better. This is because single-threaded apps will be able to use the full power (whereas multiple threads are needed to take advantagte of multiple cores.) Also, the operating system can get rid of the overhead that is needed to keep software running on the multiple cores from stepping on each other.
If you mean energy efficiency (amount of processing per watt of electricity consumed), then it could go either way, depending on how the chips are made. But given today's manufacturing processes and the non-linear power curve that we see as clock speeds are increased, the multiple-core solution will almost definitely use less power.
Fredrick
Apr 25, 04:46 PM
Hear we go again, who ever filed the law suit, get a life. Lifes not all about trying to make money out of others, enjoy the product for what it is. And not from what you can make out of it!, and if your worried about being tracked, then you must be doing something wrong!!!!
Dooger
Apr 8, 02:09 AM
Anyway, the iPad 2s aren't marked up, thus they make zero.
Best Buy makes zero notional margin on iPad sales, so they're not withholding stock to meet daily budgets.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps BB take a cut of Apple's share of the profit when they sell an iPad?
Best Buy makes zero notional margin on iPad sales, so they're not withholding stock to meet daily budgets.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps BB take a cut of Apple's share of the profit when they sell an iPad?
kdarling
Apr 20, 04:34 PM
Knowing about the record label wasn't on the front page of the newspaper, this was the 1970's...there was no internet, it's more than just a little possible that Jobs did not know this. And you're assuming that logo was everywhere, and you're wrong.
Actually, anyone above the age of six knew about Apple Records.
We all lived and breathed vinyl back then :)
Actually, anyone above the age of six knew about Apple Records.
We all lived and breathed vinyl back then :)
Bye Bye Baby
Jul 21, 03:33 AM
With all these new technologies with 4, 8 and eventually 24-core capacities (some time in the not too distant future) all running at 64-bit, we musn't forget that software also has tobe developed for these machienes in order to get the most out of the hardware. At the moment we aren't even maximising core-duo, let alone a quad core and all the rest!!!!
Besides, for 90% of what non-pro users do, these advances will help very little. Internet will still run at the same spead and my ipod will still chug along with USB2 etc.
Pros with pro apps acn rejoice, only if software keeps the pace!!!
Let's hope so!!!
Besides, for 90% of what non-pro users do, these advances will help very little. Internet will still run at the same spead and my ipod will still chug along with USB2 etc.
Pros with pro apps acn rejoice, only if software keeps the pace!!!
Let's hope so!!!
tortoise
Aug 7, 09:14 PM
Lots of ways it COULD be implemented. Looks at Suns new file system ZFS. It is basically "Copy on Write". With a file system you can do things even fancier then with a DBMS. For example a "block" (i-node) exists physicaly on the disk only once but it could be maped into any numbr of files. If a file in only an orderd set of block numbers then to copy a copy all you need to copy is the set of numbers which is on the order of 1000 times shorter then the data itself.
Ahem, a modern relational database system can do everything a file system can. In fact, they are both databases, but optimized for different tasks and slightly different semantics. The same behaviors can be achieved with both; it is a matter of design bias, not capability. File systems like ZFS actually converge on normal MVCC database behavior, which durably journals all writes but with more flexibility with respect to atomicity and version cleanup than a file system. File system semantics, even versioning ones, are more primitive and less capable than database ones, but with substantially increased performance over what would be possible from an MVCC database for the same task.
Same theory, different optimizations. The balancing act has always been between the power fully ACID-compliant MVCC semantics and the basic speed of simple file system semantics. Apple and Sun are burning some excess performance capacity to deliver features that are closer to the database ideal.
Ahem, a modern relational database system can do everything a file system can. In fact, they are both databases, but optimized for different tasks and slightly different semantics. The same behaviors can be achieved with both; it is a matter of design bias, not capability. File systems like ZFS actually converge on normal MVCC database behavior, which durably journals all writes but with more flexibility with respect to atomicity and version cleanup than a file system. File system semantics, even versioning ones, are more primitive and less capable than database ones, but with substantially increased performance over what would be possible from an MVCC database for the same task.
Same theory, different optimizations. The balancing act has always been between the power fully ACID-compliant MVCC semantics and the basic speed of simple file system semantics. Apple and Sun are burning some excess performance capacity to deliver features that are closer to the database ideal.
jeanlain
Apr 12, 03:55 AM
"Insufficient content"
Is an error message that pops up at random. Very frustrating.
But Compressor don't. At least not if you send something from FC directly. You have to create a QuickTime file first, then open that in Compressor, then it will use all your cores.
BUT only if you have manage to set up Qmaster correctly first. It took me 5 days online to figure this out and make it work properly. I still come to post houses where they haven't figured this out.
It shouldn't have to be this complicated
The insufficient content shouldn't pop up at random, or there is a bug. It pops up when there is insufficient content for a transition. Some transitions like crossfade are centered at the end/starting point of a clip. So it expands past/before this point, hence the need of additional content in the file.
I didn't know about that multicore issue with Compressor when launched directly from the timeline. I suspect an issue with your setup. Compressor does make good use of my 4 cores on mpeg2 and I never set up Qmaster.
Is an error message that pops up at random. Very frustrating.
But Compressor don't. At least not if you send something from FC directly. You have to create a QuickTime file first, then open that in Compressor, then it will use all your cores.
BUT only if you have manage to set up Qmaster correctly first. It took me 5 days online to figure this out and make it work properly. I still come to post houses where they haven't figured this out.
It shouldn't have to be this complicated
The insufficient content shouldn't pop up at random, or there is a bug. It pops up when there is insufficient content for a transition. Some transitions like crossfade are centered at the end/starting point of a clip. So it expands past/before this point, hence the need of additional content in the file.
I didn't know about that multicore issue with Compressor when launched directly from the timeline. I suspect an issue with your setup. Compressor does make good use of my 4 cores on mpeg2 and I never set up Qmaster.
Chip NoVaMac
Apr 7, 11:05 PM
:mad:Best Buy told me today that they had them in but Apple would not let them sell them. I have been going for two weeks every other day and they finally tell me they have them and can't sell them. I hate this crap. I want my IPad 2.
Happened to my better half today as well... though not the part about Apple telling BB not to sell them... I thought it might be about commits, and he thought it might be stock piling for an ad... guess we might know the real reason....
Happened to my better half today as well... though not the part about Apple telling BB not to sell them... I thought it might be about commits, and he thought it might be stock piling for an ad... guess we might know the real reason....
geoffism
Aug 11, 10:22 AM
I don't care so much about the iPod capability, but I would like to see the result of a smartphone by Apple. I haven't jumped on the bandwagon of the Treos and Palms.
Call me a sucker, but I'd like somehting that could do all the mundane, make my life easier, organization crap, and have it look cool as well. Oh, and not run on a crap OS.
Call me a sucker, but I'd like somehting that could do all the mundane, make my life easier, organization crap, and have it look cool as well. Oh, and not run on a crap OS.
Peace
Aug 6, 07:37 PM
I know it won't be live, but that's ok -- I just hate missing a Steve keynote -- I've watching them for several years now...
It's the streams I can't get w/the satellite internet. What exactly is a terrestrial café system? (And I haven't complained... this Apple stream thing is the only thing I've not been able to view... everything else works fine so I don't know what the deal is.
Who's your satellite company? I have Wildblue and I get around 1980Kbps downstream..
Oh and Multimedia.I just got a HD LCD TV with a new HD receiver from Echostar and after watching football in HD I'll never go back!!
It's the streams I can't get w/the satellite internet. What exactly is a terrestrial café system? (And I haven't complained... this Apple stream thing is the only thing I've not been able to view... everything else works fine so I don't know what the deal is.
Who's your satellite company? I have Wildblue and I get around 1980Kbps downstream..
Oh and Multimedia.I just got a HD LCD TV with a new HD receiver from Echostar and after watching football in HD I'll never go back!!
TerrorOFdeath
Apr 6, 11:07 AM
Forget i7.. Hellhammer seriously? Didnt expect that from you. (or where you just speaking what tehnical could be possible)
Marketingwise this would just make no sense at all. It would actually be a Conflict of interest for the MBP.
i5 seems logic. And then just mhz bump bto.
IMHO i would love to see an 11.6 MBA with an i3. So that there could still be enough power for backlit.
And please, do make the screen better for the 11.6
GMA3000 is ok for an Air. Even if it is just DX10.
Tod
PS: @Scottsdale: Did you buy this Generation MBA. Or did you wait, because the backlit thing? (just wondering, because to an i5 you cant say no can you ;-) Oh yes, to replay to your text. The bus is higher, and so is the turboboost option up to 2.X GhZ. It IS better than actuall CD2. The power you use if you need it (if not, much more battery life). But on the GPU part im with you. It is still freaking me out, crp Intel Graphics. But i can swallow it on a MBA.
Marketingwise this would just make no sense at all. It would actually be a Conflict of interest for the MBP.
i5 seems logic. And then just mhz bump bto.
IMHO i would love to see an 11.6 MBA with an i3. So that there could still be enough power for backlit.
And please, do make the screen better for the 11.6
GMA3000 is ok for an Air. Even if it is just DX10.
Tod
PS: @Scottsdale: Did you buy this Generation MBA. Or did you wait, because the backlit thing? (just wondering, because to an i5 you cant say no can you ;-) Oh yes, to replay to your text. The bus is higher, and so is the turboboost option up to 2.X GhZ. It IS better than actuall CD2. The power you use if you need it (if not, much more battery life). But on the GPU part im with you. It is still freaking me out, crp Intel Graphics. But i can swallow it on a MBA.
Yamcha
Apr 19, 02:41 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
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
KnightWRX
Apr 20, 07:47 AM
However the Galaxy devices are so close to Apple's products in appearance and design, it's very hard to tell them apart. THAT is the problem.
Don't let a few cherry picked pictures trick you, most Galaxy models don't look at all like an iPhone :
http://www.rogers.com/cms/images/en/Wireless/CellPhoneDetail/Banners/banner01_i896blkr.png
This one can go either way. Of course the Apple biased media are cherry picking their pictures. I'd doubt you'd have a hard time telling both devices apart in the real world with both in front of you.
Especially consdiring the Samsung doesn't use the icon grid on its homescreen at all, contrary to what the pictures are trying to show.
Don't let a few cherry picked pictures trick you, most Galaxy models don't look at all like an iPhone :
http://www.rogers.com/cms/images/en/Wireless/CellPhoneDetail/Banners/banner01_i896blkr.png
This one can go either way. Of course the Apple biased media are cherry picking their pictures. I'd doubt you'd have a hard time telling both devices apart in the real world with both in front of you.
Especially consdiring the Samsung doesn't use the icon grid on its homescreen at all, contrary to what the pictures are trying to show.
shamino
Jul 14, 05:26 PM
Kind of odd/funny how we seem to be going backwards in processor speeds. Instead of 3.6 GHz Pentiums, we are looking at 2.x GHz Intel Cores. It would be interesting to see how well a single Core processor matches up to PowerPC, or a Pentium, or AMD.
It just means that Intel has finally publicly recognized the validity of the MHz Myth.
Raw clock speed is meaningless. You can get better performance at a slower clock speed if you can increase parallelism. This includes features like superscalar architecture (where multiple instructions are executed per clock), deep pipelining, hyperthreading, SIMD instructions, and multi-core chips.
However, I am finding one of my predicitions finally happen...it appears that a ceiling has been currently met on how fast the current line of processors can go, and now we are relying on multiple cores/processors to distribute work, instead of relying on just one fast chip.
That's a part of the equation, but not all of it.
Higher clock speeds are possible, but it's not worth the effort. Pumping up the clock speed creates serious problems in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. Leaving the clock speed lower, but increasing parallelism will also boost performance, and keeps the power curve down at manageable levels.
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.
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).
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
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.
(FWIW, Intel is looking to Sun as a rival here. Sun's latest chip - the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) - currently ships in an 8-core configuration, with each core capable of running four threads at a time, and only consuming 72W of power. Even at 1.2GHz - the top speed they're currently shipping at - this makes for a very nice server.)
It just means that Intel has finally publicly recognized the validity of the MHz Myth.
Raw clock speed is meaningless. You can get better performance at a slower clock speed if you can increase parallelism. This includes features like superscalar architecture (where multiple instructions are executed per clock), deep pipelining, hyperthreading, SIMD instructions, and multi-core chips.
However, I am finding one of my predicitions finally happen...it appears that a ceiling has been currently met on how fast the current line of processors can go, and now we are relying on multiple cores/processors to distribute work, instead of relying on just one fast chip.
That's a part of the equation, but not all of it.
Higher clock speeds are possible, but it's not worth the effort. Pumping up the clock speed creates serious problems in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. Leaving the clock speed lower, but increasing parallelism will also boost performance, and keeps the power curve down at manageable levels.
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.
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).
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
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.
(FWIW, Intel is looking to Sun as a rival here. Sun's latest chip - the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) - currently ships in an 8-core configuration, with each core capable of running four threads at a time, and only consuming 72W of power. Even at 1.2GHz - the top speed they're currently shipping at - this makes for a very nice server.)
macfan881
Sep 7, 01:06 PM
Prologue?
no defintly saw the logo for 5 in the game.
here are some vids from other various website that are on the demohttp://www.gtplanet.net/best-buys-gt5-demo-gameplay-video-collection/
no defintly saw the logo for 5 in the game.
here are some vids from other various website that are on the demohttp://www.gtplanet.net/best-buys-gt5-demo-gameplay-video-collection/
PeterQVenkman
Apr 27, 09:03 AM
Encrypting the existing database and giving us the option to get rid of it. Sounds fine to me.
MacSawdust
Aug 26, 10:40 AM
This nows explains why mine is not valid.
Vegasman
Apr 27, 08:57 AM
Ah, I see. I wasn't checking the WSJ, only Macrumors.
Woah! That's a scrary thought. ;)
Woah! That's a scrary thought. ;)
dougny
Nov 29, 09:13 AM
Lame. As if they aren't gettign enough money as it is.
They aren't. The entire music business revenues are down 40% since 2001. Sales are down hugely. I can tell you from representing these artists that all the money is down too.
Are you spending as much on music as you did years ago?
They aren't. The entire music business revenues are down 40% since 2001. Sales are down hugely. I can tell you from representing these artists that all the money is down too.
Are you spending as much on music as you did years ago?
gauriemma
Aug 26, 08:12 AM
No, because different versions of the ranges were initially posted only recently has it been clarified...get with the program and stop trying to be a smartass
Get with what program? I went to the support site on the day the recall was announced, checked to see if my serial number was in the range, it wasn't, and I went on with my life. Just to be safe, I even checked back a couple days later, and the ranges were still the same as the first time I checked.
I had to do the same thing wheh I was checking out our Dell laptops at the office. It's really not that difficult a concept. I think some people just like to have something to complain about.
Get with what program? I went to the support site on the day the recall was announced, checked to see if my serial number was in the range, it wasn't, and I went on with my life. Just to be safe, I even checked back a couple days later, and the ranges were still the same as the first time I checked.
I had to do the same thing wheh I was checking out our Dell laptops at the office. It's really not that difficult a concept. I think some people just like to have something to complain about.
Multimedia
Aug 27, 02:59 AM
I already have those stats, I want to see them drop in a high-end Conroe (~3GHz) so I would know that I could feasibly upgrade my 2GHz Core Duo in the future. It's possible, isn't it? I mean, the G5's were really hot, and the iMac enclosure could handle that, wouldn't the new Intel ones be able to handle the Conroe Extremes?I think you might be able to put a Merom 2.33GHz in there without much trouble. But I dont' think Conroe is pin compatable with your iMac. :)
RedTomato
Jul 20, 07:48 PM
Orgy-core.
That gets my vote.
Or Octopussy.
http://www.affichescinema.com/insc_o/octopussy.jpg
That gets my vote.
Or Octopussy.
http://www.affichescinema.com/insc_o/octopussy.jpg
phairphan
Aug 26, 04:19 PM
Only problem with that is that a 2.33 GHz Merom chip will be fifty percent more expensive than a 2.16 GHz Yonah is today. So do you think Apple will increase prices of the MacBook Pro by $150 to $200 or reduce their profit?
I believe the 2.33 GHz Merom chip debuted at the same price as the 2.16 GHz Yonah when it was released. The prices of MBPs certainly haven't fallen. Apple has just been enjoying the extra profits from Intel's price drops of the past few months.
I believe the 2.33 GHz Merom chip debuted at the same price as the 2.16 GHz Yonah when it was released. The prices of MBPs certainly haven't fallen. Apple has just been enjoying the extra profits from Intel's price drops of the past few months.