Spanky Deluxe
Oct 26, 10:03 AM
Second in line here at the moment, the queues building slowly. Feeling just a *tad* geeky!
floatingspirit
May 8, 01:45 PM
Mine downloaded and installed perfectly, but when I launch the display is all f-ed up and I can't operate any of the UI except typing my account name and using the "Quit" and "Manage Account" buttons. This seems to be a total bust on my old system...
It's using 110% of my CPU while the finder is using 70% of CPU according to the Activity Monitor. How is that even possible? LOL
It's using 110% of my CPU while the finder is using 70% of CPU according to the Activity Monitor. How is that even possible? LOL
JAT
Mar 24, 04:28 PM
I'm already getting two iPad 2s for me & my wife & I saw this & wanted to get one for my daughter. My wife made a pretty good statement of "Do we need to go from no iPads to three in one house?"
Chalk up another version of "Wife said no."
Just wait until your daughter and wife fall in love with them. Then you won't have one. And the hypocrisy/irony won't matter to her, either.
Chalk up another version of "Wife said no."
Just wait until your daughter and wife fall in love with them. Then you won't have one. And the hypocrisy/irony won't matter to her, either.
Angrist
Apr 12, 11:48 PM
I ordered Pages as soon as it was announced, and it immediately replaced Word as my primary word processing program.
I'm not sure what many other posters are thinking, because Word is FAR from the best application on my mac, it's closer to the worst. It tends to crash on my when saving, or pasting, or moving text (and it's not my install, three different computers all do the same thing).
Now for Pages, yes it was a little hard to get used to. I was constantly looking for a quick way of changing font styles and sizes, same thing with margins and headers and footers. But then I realised that I was ALWAYS making the same couple of changes. So I set up a blank document with the margins and tracking / numbering settings that I commonly use. Then made 4 new text styles and saved the document as a template.
Now I'm using a template that has all of my settings and favorite fonts / sizes / spacing easily accessible through one click on a style button. And since I did that, I havn't gone looking for a setting (other than for some image manip). Basically, what I'm trying to get at is this; if you found Pages UI to be hard to work with, just create some new paragraph styles and a document template for margins / global settings.
As far as bloat goes..... yes Pages does tend to slow down when there are lots of images hanging around, BUT I can't say that the slowdown is any worse than opening the same document in Word.
Overall it was a worthwhile purchase, but I'm still looking forward to future upgrades
I'm not sure what many other posters are thinking, because Word is FAR from the best application on my mac, it's closer to the worst. It tends to crash on my when saving, or pasting, or moving text (and it's not my install, three different computers all do the same thing).
Now for Pages, yes it was a little hard to get used to. I was constantly looking for a quick way of changing font styles and sizes, same thing with margins and headers and footers. But then I realised that I was ALWAYS making the same couple of changes. So I set up a blank document with the margins and tracking / numbering settings that I commonly use. Then made 4 new text styles and saved the document as a template.
Now I'm using a template that has all of my settings and favorite fonts / sizes / spacing easily accessible through one click on a style button. And since I did that, I havn't gone looking for a setting (other than for some image manip). Basically, what I'm trying to get at is this; if you found Pages UI to be hard to work with, just create some new paragraph styles and a document template for margins / global settings.
As far as bloat goes..... yes Pages does tend to slow down when there are lots of images hanging around, BUT I can't say that the slowdown is any worse than opening the same document in Word.
Overall it was a worthwhile purchase, but I'm still looking forward to future upgrades
barkmonster
Sep 14, 09:01 AM
If your Mac is slower than a PC for any reason on the same application it is because the software hasn't been optimized for the Mac. Write the software developer before you complain about the Mac speed. Get them to develop for Altivec. It makes a world of difference.
No chance.
Most applications that can take advantage of Altivec already do, there's a lot of processes that can't benefit from Altivec at all and that's where the G4 is getting beaten senseless.
Even Altivec itself is crippled by the bus speed.
The G4 achieves 1.3Gb/s on the dual 1Ghz G4 with the 167Mhz Front Side Bus.
Remembering that there's 8 bits in a byte and memory is 64 bit the Mb/s of the FSB works out as follows :
(100 / 3) x 5 = 166.666 this is just the precise way of calculating the bus speed
64 bit / 8 = 8 bytes
8 x 166.666Mhz = 1.333 GB/s
Remembering that 1.3Gb/s is the most the system controller can transfere to either CPU, altivec is hardly getting any of the juice it needs at all with the current G4 design.
Assuming we're still talking about that dual Ghz G4, Altvec works out like this :
(128 / 8) x 1000Mhz = 15.625 Gb/s
It's only getting a measly 1.3Gb/s, hardly what it needs.
Plus both CPUs and both Altivec units have to share the same 167Mhz FSB to transfere data to and from main memory.
Even though the L2 and L3 cache have a lot to play in getting around the FSB bottleneck, that's 1.3Gb/s of bandwidth shared between cpus and SiMD units that require a total of 33.85Mb/s.
If you're working on data that's less than 256K it fits in the L2 cache and there's no bottleneck, anything bigger than that and it's either got to fit in the L3 which is half the required bandwidth or it's coming from main system memory with that tiny 1.3Mb/s of bandwidth.
No chance.
Most applications that can take advantage of Altivec already do, there's a lot of processes that can't benefit from Altivec at all and that's where the G4 is getting beaten senseless.
Even Altivec itself is crippled by the bus speed.
The G4 achieves 1.3Gb/s on the dual 1Ghz G4 with the 167Mhz Front Side Bus.
Remembering that there's 8 bits in a byte and memory is 64 bit the Mb/s of the FSB works out as follows :
(100 / 3) x 5 = 166.666 this is just the precise way of calculating the bus speed
64 bit / 8 = 8 bytes
8 x 166.666Mhz = 1.333 GB/s
Remembering that 1.3Gb/s is the most the system controller can transfere to either CPU, altivec is hardly getting any of the juice it needs at all with the current G4 design.
Assuming we're still talking about that dual Ghz G4, Altvec works out like this :
(128 / 8) x 1000Mhz = 15.625 Gb/s
It's only getting a measly 1.3Gb/s, hardly what it needs.
Plus both CPUs and both Altivec units have to share the same 167Mhz FSB to transfere data to and from main memory.
Even though the L2 and L3 cache have a lot to play in getting around the FSB bottleneck, that's 1.3Gb/s of bandwidth shared between cpus and SiMD units that require a total of 33.85Mb/s.
If you're working on data that's less than 256K it fits in the L2 cache and there's no bottleneck, anything bigger than that and it's either got to fit in the L3 which is half the required bandwidth or it's coming from main system memory with that tiny 1.3Mb/s of bandwidth.
Apple!Fre@k
Mar 19, 05:13 PM
$20 discount? BFD!
That doesn't impress anybody, much less educators.
For buying 10, the discount should be $100 per unit. Buy 100, $125 off per unit.
That doesn't impress anybody, much less educators.
For buying 10, the discount should be $100 per unit. Buy 100, $125 off per unit.
DeSnousa
Apr 15, 06:41 PM
Serious out of over 400,000 members on this forum we have 69 members contribiting to folding@home. Even so team Macrumors.com is ranked 58 world wide, thats an incredible thing. We used to be ranked 23, years ago there is no reason we can't grow again!
Jvhowube
Oct 25, 07:26 AM
I ordered a MBP last evening, and cancelled my order late last night after realizing that it is WAY more than I need. I have been waiting for this Merom update for ages, but I guess I'll have to wait a bit longer for the MMB. The MBP was just way too over-the-top for my use, and way too expensive for what I need.
So now that I'm on this bandwagon...
What's the speculation on a timeframe? Before Thanksgiving?
So now that I'm on this bandwagon...
What's the speculation on a timeframe? Before Thanksgiving?
stridemat
May 2, 01:22 PM
It's just that black is slimming. ;)
wait till you see the new horizontal stripe iPhone.
wait till you see the new horizontal stripe iPhone.
Lesser Evets
Mar 28, 09:04 AM
I understand why people like iOS, and it is useful for a lot of things. Productivity is far behind novelty/entertainment at this time, but iOS will become far more versatile when the portable hardware ups a few leaps.
iOS 9 + iPad 5 might be worth the hype. IMO
iOS 9 + iPad 5 might be worth the hype. IMO
DeSnousa
Apr 17, 05:01 PM
Want to welcome Monitor and Pixellated to the team, thanks for your contribution :)
Monitor your stats: http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/user_summary.php?s=&u=510149
Pixellated your stats: http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/user_summary.php?s=&u=509269
Monitor your stats: http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/user_summary.php?s=&u=510149
Pixellated your stats: http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/user_summary.php?s=&u=509269
chmorley
Sep 13, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by ewinemiller
...and then factor out mhz, this is the list fastest to slowest: PIII-mobile, P4-533mhz bus, PIII-coppermine, G4-quicksilver, G3, PII. Of course with the boosted bus on the new G4s, this ranking may well have changed, but the point is, the P4 is no longer the laggard it was at it's introduction...
...I have to believe that Steve and Co. have something interesting up their sleeve because to follow Motorola's plodding updates to the G4 seems like a slow suicide and would be a terrible thing to do to the stockholders and fans of the platform.
Before I get flamed about how it's worth the performance hit and cost to avoid the PCs reputation for more downtime. I haven't a problem like that since NT4 with sp3 as long as I use a top tier vender like dell. The handful of homegrown machines I've built since then have been notoriously twitchy, but is probably more an indicator of my skills as a system integrator not of the platform in general. Some great, true, and sad points. However, you are comparing old Macs with newer PCs. There are other factors besides processor speed that might be affecting your outcome. In addition, I wonder if the software you're using is optimized for AltiVec.
Secondly, I agree that NT4 is notoriously stable. Isn't it a bit sad, though, that M$ofties have to use an old OS to get stability. Nonetheless, it is true that Wintel users can have greater speed and great stability on their machines. It's still not OS X, but if you're comfortable in the environment and get get things done (sometimes more) efficiently, why would you buy a new (more expensive) Mac.
Thirdly, I think Motorola is keeping up with (the bastardaized interpretation of) Mohr's Law over the past year or two. The problem is that somewhere between their speed superiority and today, they lost ground.
I love Apple, but if they don't find a way to catch up, they're dead in the water.
Chris
p.s., Dell a "top tier" vendor?
...and then factor out mhz, this is the list fastest to slowest: PIII-mobile, P4-533mhz bus, PIII-coppermine, G4-quicksilver, G3, PII. Of course with the boosted bus on the new G4s, this ranking may well have changed, but the point is, the P4 is no longer the laggard it was at it's introduction...
...I have to believe that Steve and Co. have something interesting up their sleeve because to follow Motorola's plodding updates to the G4 seems like a slow suicide and would be a terrible thing to do to the stockholders and fans of the platform.
Before I get flamed about how it's worth the performance hit and cost to avoid the PCs reputation for more downtime. I haven't a problem like that since NT4 with sp3 as long as I use a top tier vender like dell. The handful of homegrown machines I've built since then have been notoriously twitchy, but is probably more an indicator of my skills as a system integrator not of the platform in general. Some great, true, and sad points. However, you are comparing old Macs with newer PCs. There are other factors besides processor speed that might be affecting your outcome. In addition, I wonder if the software you're using is optimized for AltiVec.
Secondly, I agree that NT4 is notoriously stable. Isn't it a bit sad, though, that M$ofties have to use an old OS to get stability. Nonetheless, it is true that Wintel users can have greater speed and great stability on their machines. It's still not OS X, but if you're comfortable in the environment and get get things done (sometimes more) efficiently, why would you buy a new (more expensive) Mac.
Thirdly, I think Motorola is keeping up with (the bastardaized interpretation of) Mohr's Law over the past year or two. The problem is that somewhere between their speed superiority and today, they lost ground.
I love Apple, but if they don't find a way to catch up, they're dead in the water.
Chris
p.s., Dell a "top tier" vendor?
DeSnousa
May 3, 07:58 PM
I just joined anonymously, but I used the MacRumors team number.
Excellent, thanks a lot for your contributions.
Excellent, thanks a lot for your contributions.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 6, 11:08 AM
Need to wait a year at least to see how thunderbolt pans out. The only thunderbolt drive I know of is Lacie's and its announced as coming soon. But how much will it cost?
nagromme
Nov 6, 12:34 PM
The iPhone has a power source, unlike a typical card or keyfob, so I would think it could implement active RFID instead of passive.
In other words, have it ONLY functional when powered on, unlike the tag in an RFID card. Then it can be optional and up to the user—best of both worlds. Convenience AND privacy. I could accept a tiny battery drain for that flexibility.
And if you’re paranoid about whether it REALLY is turned off when it says, then you may as well be paranoid about whether there already IS a chip in your iPhone (and your shoes and your coffee) that they’re not telling you about :)
(I’d be interested to know whether active RFID could do what nkawtg72 suggested above: alert you when the tag is read. Can it know that a read has taken place or is it just a steady broadcast in one direction? A beep/vibrate would be a nice step up from what a simple card can do.)
In other words, have it ONLY functional when powered on, unlike the tag in an RFID card. Then it can be optional and up to the user—best of both worlds. Convenience AND privacy. I could accept a tiny battery drain for that flexibility.
And if you’re paranoid about whether it REALLY is turned off when it says, then you may as well be paranoid about whether there already IS a chip in your iPhone (and your shoes and your coffee) that they’re not telling you about :)
(I’d be interested to know whether active RFID could do what nkawtg72 suggested above: alert you when the tag is read. Can it know that a read has taken place or is it just a steady broadcast in one direction? A beep/vibrate would be a nice step up from what a simple card can do.)
63dot
Apr 5, 12:56 PM
This is so on the money.
I was just having lunch while watching a film on my iPad. Next table over a table of business people are showing off one of their new iPads. People respond so positively to the experience on so many levels it really has something for nearly everyone.
The important thing that apple got was that making great computers for 2% of the population, or smaller, was one thing. Making a great piece of hardware for 95% of the world something else entirely and much more lucrative.
With 80.2% percent of revenue based on stuff other than Macs for Apple, this makes sense.
If I were a PC user finally comfortable with a new PC and (pretty good) Windows 7, I wouldn't really need a Mac. What can a Mac add for me?
But the iPad is so portable and incredibly powerful for its size and price it's hard to say no to it. Apple has already shown a whole world of PC users how indispensable iPods and iPhones are, so we came out with iPad for Mac users and non-Mac users and from the numbers we are making a killing.
I don't know if both Steves had this type of vision that far back unless they were hard core Star Trek fans or something with a long range vision of making really cool devices. I thought they were all about the personal computer in the beginning, and of course their own operating system.
I was just having lunch while watching a film on my iPad. Next table over a table of business people are showing off one of their new iPads. People respond so positively to the experience on so many levels it really has something for nearly everyone.
The important thing that apple got was that making great computers for 2% of the population, or smaller, was one thing. Making a great piece of hardware for 95% of the world something else entirely and much more lucrative.
With 80.2% percent of revenue based on stuff other than Macs for Apple, this makes sense.
If I were a PC user finally comfortable with a new PC and (pretty good) Windows 7, I wouldn't really need a Mac. What can a Mac add for me?
But the iPad is so portable and incredibly powerful for its size and price it's hard to say no to it. Apple has already shown a whole world of PC users how indispensable iPods and iPhones are, so we came out with iPad for Mac users and non-Mac users and from the numbers we are making a killing.
I don't know if both Steves had this type of vision that far back unless they were hard core Star Trek fans or something with a long range vision of making really cool devices. I thought they were all about the personal computer in the beginning, and of course their own operating system.
Pants
Sep 15, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by MisterMe
I have not seen those posts, but then I have seen a lot of other bitching and moaning about one thing or another. Point No. 1: Although I don't have access to a 17" iMac, I do have Jaguar installed on my 2000 Firewire PowerBook G3. I don't see any of that choppiness and jerkiness that you mentioned. I would be astonished to find it on a faster machine like the 17" iMac. Point No. 2: Don't take anybody's word for it. Drive down to your nearest Apple retailer. Look at the machines yourself. That should end all arguments.
I have a recent ibook running jaguar - it has had a clean install (twice) and, quite frankly, its annoyingly slow. This is a current mac, running its current os, and its hardly acceptable - running illustrator? expect the beach ball, the same with large word documents. And I still see the beachball with annoying frequency in the finder. I don't care that this isnt the top of the range 3,000 quid machine - it is stupid to only expect acceptable performance in Word on the top of the line machine. No, don't take my word for it, go have a look at a fully loaded i-book
Again, have your actually seen this "choppiness" on that $2000 machine with the brand new OS? Now for the issue of MHz, browse the web sites of the expensive UNIX workstations and servers. Look at the clock speeds of the offerings from IBM, HP, SGI, and Sun. For the most part, you will see that their machines have clock speeds in the sub-GHz range. Yet these are the machines of choice when price is no object and the job must get done. Just think about this: these boards are filled with laments that effectively tell you that you need substaintially higher clock speeds to run a computer game than you need to simulate the gas flow in a jet engine. Don't you think that something is just a bit warped here?
these machines are 64-bit, with floating point performance that widdles all over apples current offerings. The reason they are used is for this feature alone - and yepI would rather run my simulations on a sparc box than a pc, although the cost of a cheap linux box is pushing us down that route. At some point there is a balance between cost and performance. Yes it is odd that I need the fastest box around to run ut2k3 acceptably, and i agree there is something wrong with the way the market is being driven, but I suppose if thats what customers want (and are prepared to pay for), this is what they'll get....
Think. Think. Think. Apple does not "appear" to be purposesly crippling its systems. The entirity of the corporation orbits about the Macintosh. No company would purposely cripple its central product. The fact that Apple is only one of two profitable personal computer manufacturers serve as loud testimony to the contrary. Just because a bunch of idle college students post things on the Internet does not make them so.
never intentionally 'crippled' a machine? what about teh video card on teh ibook?
I have not seen those posts, but then I have seen a lot of other bitching and moaning about one thing or another. Point No. 1: Although I don't have access to a 17" iMac, I do have Jaguar installed on my 2000 Firewire PowerBook G3. I don't see any of that choppiness and jerkiness that you mentioned. I would be astonished to find it on a faster machine like the 17" iMac. Point No. 2: Don't take anybody's word for it. Drive down to your nearest Apple retailer. Look at the machines yourself. That should end all arguments.
I have a recent ibook running jaguar - it has had a clean install (twice) and, quite frankly, its annoyingly slow. This is a current mac, running its current os, and its hardly acceptable - running illustrator? expect the beach ball, the same with large word documents. And I still see the beachball with annoying frequency in the finder. I don't care that this isnt the top of the range 3,000 quid machine - it is stupid to only expect acceptable performance in Word on the top of the line machine. No, don't take my word for it, go have a look at a fully loaded i-book
Again, have your actually seen this "choppiness" on that $2000 machine with the brand new OS? Now for the issue of MHz, browse the web sites of the expensive UNIX workstations and servers. Look at the clock speeds of the offerings from IBM, HP, SGI, and Sun. For the most part, you will see that their machines have clock speeds in the sub-GHz range. Yet these are the machines of choice when price is no object and the job must get done. Just think about this: these boards are filled with laments that effectively tell you that you need substaintially higher clock speeds to run a computer game than you need to simulate the gas flow in a jet engine. Don't you think that something is just a bit warped here?
these machines are 64-bit, with floating point performance that widdles all over apples current offerings. The reason they are used is for this feature alone - and yepI would rather run my simulations on a sparc box than a pc, although the cost of a cheap linux box is pushing us down that route. At some point there is a balance between cost and performance. Yes it is odd that I need the fastest box around to run ut2k3 acceptably, and i agree there is something wrong with the way the market is being driven, but I suppose if thats what customers want (and are prepared to pay for), this is what they'll get....
Think. Think. Think. Apple does not "appear" to be purposesly crippling its systems. The entirity of the corporation orbits about the Macintosh. No company would purposely cripple its central product. The fact that Apple is only one of two profitable personal computer manufacturers serve as loud testimony to the contrary. Just because a bunch of idle college students post things on the Internet does not make them so.
never intentionally 'crippled' a machine? what about teh video card on teh ibook?
MacRumors
Mar 23, 01:05 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/23/apple-seeking-to-license-airplay-for-video-streaming/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/23/140318-airplay_tangled.jpg
Simpsons Wallpaper Image
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/23/140318-airplay_tangled.jpg
coday182
Sep 25, 10:30 PM
why did they wait till now to worry about this?
zemoleman
Apr 16, 02:58 PM
Is it me or is Apple becoming a silly caricature of its own 1984 ad?
marksman
Mar 24, 10:39 AM
DUI checkpoints are unreasonable searches lacking probable cause. Any push back is reasonable and any support of them should be criminally prosecuted. Too bad they never prosecute themselves. We have lost our "right to liberty". Period.
Rocketman
Wrong thread maybe? Or are people saying DLNA is the same as airplay drunk in your opinion?
Rocketman
Wrong thread maybe? Or are people saying DLNA is the same as airplay drunk in your opinion?
runeasgar
Jan 6, 04:08 PM
You obviously haven't been introduced to the evils of farmville and similar facebook apps.
Does Farmville qualify as a wall post, to your wall?
I don't think it does.
Does Farmville qualify as a wall post, to your wall?
I don't think it does.
alent1234
Mar 28, 08:24 AM
This confirms that iOS 5 will be previewed in June and not in April like past years...
so no dev previews to get the bugs worked out as well as get devs writing iOS 5 apps for release?
so no dev previews to get the bugs worked out as well as get devs writing iOS 5 apps for release?
robbieduncan
Mar 29, 06:51 AM
You are incorrect...
I say "Canon EF Lens" because Canon EF-S Lenses are made specifically for the 1.6x FOVCF DSLR bodies (but still require the same FOVCF to be applied as the standard Canon EF Lenses to get the equivalent focal length comparison).[/I]
This says exactly what I am saying and proves me right, not wrong: the same crop factor is applied to EF-s lenses as EF lenses. So a 50mm EF lens on a crop body produces the same field of view as a 50mm EF-s lens. Thanks for the proof that I am right :)
Edit to add: if we look at the only EF-s prime, the 60mm f/2.8, (for simplicity) it states "Its angle of view is equivalent to a 96mm lens on a 35mm camera" (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=293) showing the same 1.6 crop that would would expect for an EF lens is applied.
I say "Canon EF Lens" because Canon EF-S Lenses are made specifically for the 1.6x FOVCF DSLR bodies (but still require the same FOVCF to be applied as the standard Canon EF Lenses to get the equivalent focal length comparison).[/I]
This says exactly what I am saying and proves me right, not wrong: the same crop factor is applied to EF-s lenses as EF lenses. So a 50mm EF lens on a crop body produces the same field of view as a 50mm EF-s lens. Thanks for the proof that I am right :)
Edit to add: if we look at the only EF-s prime, the 60mm f/2.8, (for simplicity) it states "Its angle of view is equivalent to a 96mm lens on a 35mm camera" (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=293) showing the same 1.6 crop that would would expect for an EF lens is applied.
