kdarling
Apr 27, 10:20 AM
Ever been to NTTC Corry?
Oops, you deleted your PS.
No sir, trained at DLI Monterey and Goodfellow AFB. Damn, how come the Navy always has the bases at the nicest spots? :)
Oops, you deleted your PS.
No sir, trained at DLI Monterey and Goodfellow AFB. Damn, how come the Navy always has the bases at the nicest spots? :)
entatlrg
Apr 6, 12:38 PM
The most interesting thing here is how some people hang on every word over updates to the MacBook Air line.
Some won't touch it without a Sandy Bridge update, others want it left alone to save the NVIDIA graphics.
From dated chips, future proofing, when to buy, getting in at the right time and on and on ...
What gives?
In 90% of the tasks the average MacBook Air owner does are they really going to notice it either way?
Future proofing/saving a few hundred dollars ... there is no such thing ... just look back at the electronics you purchased in the past... how has 'future proofing' worked for you so far? lol
Like it. Buy it. Enjoy it.
Some won't touch it without a Sandy Bridge update, others want it left alone to save the NVIDIA graphics.
From dated chips, future proofing, when to buy, getting in at the right time and on and on ...
What gives?
In 90% of the tasks the average MacBook Air owner does are they really going to notice it either way?
Future proofing/saving a few hundred dollars ... there is no such thing ... just look back at the electronics you purchased in the past... how has 'future proofing' worked for you so far? lol
Like it. Buy it. Enjoy it.
OrangeSVTguy
Apr 25, 04:23 PM
Guess we all now know what that new data center is going to be used for now.
ergle2
Sep 19, 12:14 PM
so... after reading here for a while i got a question, its kinda stupid, i'm good at that,
first off, i was doubting between the 24" and the macpro so i disided that for my needs i should realy go with a macpro, but know that i'm hearing things about this 8 core macpro, i'm realy doubting about ordering my quad macpro this month,
has anybody got an idea of how long it would be before apple launches " a macpro octo " :confused:
thx for your time :)
It's Apple. No-one has any idea when they'll do anything. :)
It could be as soon as January, could be a lot later -- but I seriously doubt it'd be at the same price as a quad is now. I'd figure on a fairly major premium. It wouldn't surprise me if the OEM price of processors was in the $1200-1500 range alone (current 3.0GHz 5160's are around $900) for a lower clock-speed version.
Which is fastest will very much depend upon how well your specific applications scale -- fewer, faster cores can often bear more slower cores, and scaling isn't linear -- traditional thought on SMP was that the first extra core you add adds 80-90% to the speed (for fully-threaded apps, obv.), the second adds about 60-70%, the third about 40%, and so-on... diminishing returns. This will be more so because each chip has a finite amount of bandwidth that is shared between all the cores -- more cores = more contention for the available bandwidth.
Of course, the Mac Pro CPUs are socketed, so you can always go Octo at a later date if you so choose...
first off, i was doubting between the 24" and the macpro so i disided that for my needs i should realy go with a macpro, but know that i'm hearing things about this 8 core macpro, i'm realy doubting about ordering my quad macpro this month,
has anybody got an idea of how long it would be before apple launches " a macpro octo " :confused:
thx for your time :)
It's Apple. No-one has any idea when they'll do anything. :)
It could be as soon as January, could be a lot later -- but I seriously doubt it'd be at the same price as a quad is now. I'd figure on a fairly major premium. It wouldn't surprise me if the OEM price of processors was in the $1200-1500 range alone (current 3.0GHz 5160's are around $900) for a lower clock-speed version.
Which is fastest will very much depend upon how well your specific applications scale -- fewer, faster cores can often bear more slower cores, and scaling isn't linear -- traditional thought on SMP was that the first extra core you add adds 80-90% to the speed (for fully-threaded apps, obv.), the second adds about 60-70%, the third about 40%, and so-on... diminishing returns. This will be more so because each chip has a finite amount of bandwidth that is shared between all the cores -- more cores = more contention for the available bandwidth.
Of course, the Mac Pro CPUs are socketed, so you can always go Octo at a later date if you so choose...
AvSRoCkCO1067
Aug 11, 01:41 PM
From what we're read so far, especially the quote that went something like: "it's not like we're sitting around not doing anything." or however it went, and everybody read this:
It's not a question of if, it's a question of WHEN
I just find it rather funny that so many people are already giving it the name iPhone. I think that is the worst name ever, and a little too predictable. Even the false "iChat Mobile" was a far superior name.
I don't think anyone actually thinks it will be called the 'iPhone' - instead, we're just using that highly generic name until we find out what it really will be called...
It's not a question of if, it's a question of WHEN
I just find it rather funny that so many people are already giving it the name iPhone. I think that is the worst name ever, and a little too predictable. Even the false "iChat Mobile" was a far superior name.
I don't think anyone actually thinks it will be called the 'iPhone' - instead, we're just using that highly generic name until we find out what it really will be called...
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
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.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
k995
Apr 20, 02:03 PM
Who says? Some people refer to the Samsung F700, but that was shown for the first time a month after the iPhone, and released about five months after the iPhone. (Faked images by Android fanboys won't count in court).
LG prada was shown before iphone was shown. And it shares lenty of things with the iphone that was released later.
LG prada was shown before iphone was shown. And it shares lenty of things with the iphone that was released later.
kntgsp
Mar 31, 06:23 PM
The biggest advantage always given for Android over iOS is that it's "open source." Well, clearly that's not the case anymore. So, I can't think of any other reason to use Android over iOS, or even Windows 7. It looks like junk, and it's just a cheap ripoff of iOS.
That, right there, is one of the reasons why the Apple community is widely mocked. You should be ashamed of yourself. A complete lack of understanding on the most basic principles of technology.
That, right there, is one of the reasons why the Apple community is widely mocked. You should be ashamed of yourself. A complete lack of understanding on the most basic principles of technology.
kirk26
Apr 6, 02:34 PM
I'm voting this positive only because this is such a low number and Apple is winning.
satzzz
Aug 19, 05:52 PM
There's allready en new beta of Adobe's Lightroom, Does that one run native under on the intel machines?
Horst
Aug 28, 10:49 AM
Just my 0.02 regarding Apple's customer service :
I buy Apple computers in the hope never to need any support by the manufacturer. Two times I had issues ( broken hinge on TiBook, 1st. gen. ACD 23" with severe color tint ) and Apple wouldn't even acknowledge such a problem exists. Needless to say, those faults are well documented as inherent design flaws of the products mentioned.
That's Apple Germany, mind you - I would never even try to contact Apple US for possible issues with the computers I bought and use over there, as customer protection in the US is virtually non-existent.
I'm a professional user, and received exceptional online and phone support by other companies for 300$ products, but no service whatsoever for 20k+ of Apple products.
I know Apple is not catering to pros, but still ....
I buy Apple computers in the hope never to need any support by the manufacturer. Two times I had issues ( broken hinge on TiBook, 1st. gen. ACD 23" with severe color tint ) and Apple wouldn't even acknowledge such a problem exists. Needless to say, those faults are well documented as inherent design flaws of the products mentioned.
That's Apple Germany, mind you - I would never even try to contact Apple US for possible issues with the computers I bought and use over there, as customer protection in the US is virtually non-existent.
I'm a professional user, and received exceptional online and phone support by other companies for 300$ products, but no service whatsoever for 20k+ of Apple products.
I know Apple is not catering to pros, but still ....
[G5]Hydra
Jul 15, 04:23 PM
Early Blu-Ray burners can't read or write CDs, and are slow at DVDs. Maybe we'll see a Blu-Ray burner and a high-speed DVD�R(W)/CD-R(W).
Exactly right. Apple seems cozy with Pioneer, they did debut the original Superdrive in a PowerMac remember, and Pioneer's BDR-101A Blu-ray burner can't read or write CDs. Dual opticals would have nothing to do with Apple wanting to make people copy discs or doing anything made simple with two opticals. Pioneer debuted the BDR-101A (http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,125581,00.asp) a few months ago at $1000 retail and if Apple gets a nice discount to use them they would need to go with an additional drive to be able to do CD's.
-Jerry C.
Exactly right. Apple seems cozy with Pioneer, they did debut the original Superdrive in a PowerMac remember, and Pioneer's BDR-101A Blu-ray burner can't read or write CDs. Dual opticals would have nothing to do with Apple wanting to make people copy discs or doing anything made simple with two opticals. Pioneer debuted the BDR-101A (http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,125581,00.asp) a few months ago at $1000 retail and if Apple gets a nice discount to use them they would need to go with an additional drive to be able to do CD's.
-Jerry C.
craig jones
Sep 13, 01:10 PM
The OS takes advantage of the extra 4 cores already therefore its ahead of the technology curve, correct? Gee, no innovation here...please move along folks. :rolleyes:
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores. You think those fools (the same idiots who came up with Genuine Advantage) actually optimized their OS to run in an 8 core setup? Please pass along what you're smoking. :rolleyes:
How do you know these things? Is Windows' 64-bit support sketchier than OS X's? Of course not. OS X has little 64-bit support and none at all for Intel. Windows also supports far more than 2 or 4 cores (although there are license restrictions). Windows has run on far more than 8 cores for a long, long time. You realize they have an actual presence in the server market, don't you?
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores. You think those fools (the same idiots who came up with Genuine Advantage) actually optimized their OS to run in an 8 core setup? Please pass along what you're smoking. :rolleyes:
How do you know these things? Is Windows' 64-bit support sketchier than OS X's? Of course not. OS X has little 64-bit support and none at all for Intel. Windows also supports far more than 2 or 4 cores (although there are license restrictions). Windows has run on far more than 8 cores for a long, long time. You realize they have an actual presence in the server market, don't you?
georgi0
Sep 19, 12:54 AM
.. i am wondering if the price of the current line of MB and MBP will drop or it will stay the same and it will be replaced by shiping out MEROM laptops.
thanks..
thanks..
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 04:00 PM
I'm eligible for a new phone in just five days. As of right now I'm going to get the Chocolate because I like the style. Couldn't really care less about listening to music on my phone, that's what my iPod's for. ;)
But...but...if Apple does release a phone and I've already bought the Chocolate then I'll be kicking myself to no end. But on the other hand, how likely is it that the iPhone will even work on Verizon?
Bah! I need a new phone! :(
You might want to read some reviews on the Chocolate before buying it. I've seen a handful of reviews that were less than favorable.
A good resource is Phonescoop.com. They usually have a decent amount of user reviews upon which you can base your purchasing decisions.
But...but...if Apple does release a phone and I've already bought the Chocolate then I'll be kicking myself to no end. But on the other hand, how likely is it that the iPhone will even work on Verizon?
Bah! I need a new phone! :(
You might want to read some reviews on the Chocolate before buying it. I've seen a handful of reviews that were less than favorable.
A good resource is Phonescoop.com. They usually have a decent amount of user reviews upon which you can base your purchasing decisions.
NicP
Aug 25, 09:38 PM
Apple support has been very average for me in Australia. I have 2 macbooks being repaired now, they both have multiple problems and have been at the repair place for over a week. I tried to get apple to just replace them but after being fowarded through several departments they told me no. When i have used dell support, I ring up and tell them what the problem is and someone comes to my house to fix the computer the next day. I thought apple was supposed to be better at support than dell?
ghostlyorb
Apr 8, 08:17 AM
How many times does it need to be said, "don't screw around with Apple"?
Pared
Apr 6, 02:02 PM
Honda sells a TON more cars than BMW by a huge factor...I'd rather drive a BMW, I guess you're all happy with the Hondas :)
And I guess it works both ways. If the iPad is a Honda, the Xoom is a Hyundai, or more and more of late, a Kia.
Just enjoy a device for what it is... these child-like torts are silly. Both are nice. The only true differentiating factor is the AppStore right now.
And I guess it works both ways. If the iPad is a Honda, the Xoom is a Hyundai, or more and more of late, a Kia.
Just enjoy a device for what it is... these child-like torts are silly. Both are nice. The only true differentiating factor is the AppStore right now.
troller
Apr 19, 03:10 PM
and the even bigger joke ist...all the apple stuff is produced for a small budget in china and sold like Karl Lagerfeld himself produced every little piece. Sorry but that's a shame!
NATO
Nov 28, 06:58 PM
I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that microsoft suggested it in the first place to universal.
So they say.... :rolleyes:
So they say.... :rolleyes:
emotion
Jul 20, 08:32 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.
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.
gorgeousninja
Apr 19, 04:36 PM
How can this be that 'Apple have a pretty strong case' when so many posters have said that whatever Apple does is generic, and that they have never designed or innovated anything?...
Oh! Ding!!
Must be cos they are all talking cr*p....
Oh! Ding!!
Must be cos they are all talking cr*p....
Alexsaru
Sep 13, 06:54 AM
I was interested to see that they were unable to max out CPU utilization on all 8 cores in the system. I hope it's due to the software these days not being ready to fully utilize more than one or two cores and not due to OSX's ability to scale to larger core counts. Since that's obviously where we're heading. Does anyone know about the potential for scalability of OSX to large numbers of CPU's/cores? I know some *nix varieties and BSD varieties do this really well, but one wonders if they were thinking this far in the future when they developed OSX. It'll be interesting to see...
tekmoe
Aug 26, 07:07 PM
I cannot believe that the iMac will continue to have a slower processor than the Macbook Pro. For years, the iMac has been about twice as fast as the leading Powerbook. I see no reason why Apple will not choose to put a "real man's" processor in what I would think is there most popular product (dismissing iPod). iMac deserves to retake the crown from Macbok Pro for speed in all areas, with CHEAPER components, ie. Conroe over Merom. And a decent GPU of course. In both.
I think it would be possible that Apple will rrefresh both Macbook Pro and iMac very soon, why not Tuesday? It would be nice to keep these two very comparable machines (at least at the moment) on par with each other.
After all, there is no shortage on Conroe, is there, and why else would they wait to release new iMacs? (unless iMacs get Merom too, in which case I'll be taking a quick trip to America, to find out just how much kidneys can be sold for on the black market, and how long a certain old man can survive without his.)
Conroe iMacs AND Merom MBP's on TUESDAY!
not trying to start a war or anything but...isn't that what the mac pro is for? isn't the iMac considered consumer grade while the mbp is considered professional grade??? i think it is badass that the mbp is faster than the imac.
I think it would be possible that Apple will rrefresh both Macbook Pro and iMac very soon, why not Tuesday? It would be nice to keep these two very comparable machines (at least at the moment) on par with each other.
After all, there is no shortage on Conroe, is there, and why else would they wait to release new iMacs? (unless iMacs get Merom too, in which case I'll be taking a quick trip to America, to find out just how much kidneys can be sold for on the black market, and how long a certain old man can survive without his.)
Conroe iMacs AND Merom MBP's on TUESDAY!
not trying to start a war or anything but...isn't that what the mac pro is for? isn't the iMac considered consumer grade while the mbp is considered professional grade??? i think it is badass that the mbp is faster than the imac.
