skunk
Apr 24, 05:36 AM
As sassy as that sounds- I am quite serious. :) I know, you wouldn't have got so far if you weren't serious.
bugfaceuk
Apr 10, 07:00 AM
Brilliant! then a family of five can all play scrabble or monopoly for the low low cost of $1,495*
*listed price includes iDevices only. Apple tv required to play. Apple tv, monopoly and scrabble sold separately.
Anyone who buys iOS devices to play Scrabble is an idiot. People who uses their existing iOS devices to play together have a lot of fun.
*listed price includes iDevices only. Apple tv required to play. Apple tv, monopoly and scrabble sold separately.
Anyone who buys iOS devices to play Scrabble is an idiot. People who uses their existing iOS devices to play together have a lot of fun.
bradc
Jul 12, 04:47 PM
Maybe Apple will give you a choice.
That's what I was going to say. Maybe Apple will turn more like Dell's website with a 'plethora' of options. So there might be a bunch of possible configurations?
That's what I was going to say. Maybe Apple will turn more like Dell's website with a 'plethora' of options. So there might be a bunch of possible configurations?
Little Endian
Mar 18, 10:32 AM
Meh... I use MyWi occasionally, meaning only once or twice every TWO months.
I love tethering but it is not worth it for me to spend an extra $25+ a MONTH or more for a feature that I rarely use. I will stick to my unlimited plan on a jailbroken phone using mywi for now. I have not received any texts or emails yet about my activity and doubt I will.
Now I would spend an extra $5-10 a month if ATT offered tethering with a 5-10 Gigabyte total data cap on both phone and tethering usage. Spending an extra $25+ to be on a capped 2-4GB plan is BuL*Sh&^ if it means that I have to give up my unlimited plan as well as unrestricted 3G via My3G.
ATT could use better price discrimination policies. There are many people who would like tethering, unrestricted 3G etc, who are more than willing to pay. Many would also give up unlimited data as long as ATT gave quality service at a decent price.
I love tethering but it is not worth it for me to spend an extra $25+ a MONTH or more for a feature that I rarely use. I will stick to my unlimited plan on a jailbroken phone using mywi for now. I have not received any texts or emails yet about my activity and doubt I will.
Now I would spend an extra $5-10 a month if ATT offered tethering with a 5-10 Gigabyte total data cap on both phone and tethering usage. Spending an extra $25+ to be on a capped 2-4GB plan is BuL*Sh&^ if it means that I have to give up my unlimited plan as well as unrestricted 3G via My3G.
ATT could use better price discrimination policies. There are many people who would like tethering, unrestricted 3G etc, who are more than willing to pay. Many would also give up unlimited data as long as ATT gave quality service at a decent price.
SandynJosh
Apr 9, 02:25 PM
What's an assertation?
It's like a "revalation" without the "angals" sanging.
It's like a "revalation" without the "angals" sanging.
theheadguy
Aug 29, 02:21 PM
Apple has released a statement regarding the findings and it is just as realiable as Greenpeace's.
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
Obviously, they aren't.
They don't even release timelines for many things while other companies do. Apple can defend itself, they don't need you or anyone else to stick up for it when you aren't informed on what they are doing. Just as people complain that Greenpeace doesn't know what they are talking about, many people defending Apple are totally clueless also. It's just important to know that if you really care about the situation. :rolleyes:
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
Obviously, they aren't.
They don't even release timelines for many things while other companies do. Apple can defend itself, they don't need you or anyone else to stick up for it when you aren't informed on what they are doing. Just as people complain that Greenpeace doesn't know what they are talking about, many people defending Apple are totally clueless also. It's just important to know that if you really care about the situation. :rolleyes:
megadon
Dec 27, 09:50 PM
Google has stated they will never have a smartphone. At best they just guide (rather closely) companies when producing Android handsets.
That said, if the iPhone isn't on verizon by midway next year with no solid rumors of it coming, I'm probably going to get an HTC Eris (or the Eris II will be out by then). Cheap, sexy, and running a decent OS (which will hopefully by 2.0 by then).
Gooooooooogleee phone!!!
That said, if the iPhone isn't on verizon by midway next year with no solid rumors of it coming, I'm probably going to get an HTC Eris (or the Eris II will be out by then). Cheap, sexy, and running a decent OS (which will hopefully by 2.0 by then).
Gooooooooogleee phone!!!
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 01:03 PM
You only NEED a computer one time for an iPad. After that you can never hook it up to another machine again. So if you don't have a computer at home, have Apple set up your new iPad at the Apple store and you have a true post-PC device.
OK, that's an extreme example since we all do have computers at home already, and it is nice to back up your iPad at least some time. But with cloud computing coming very quickly in the Apple world, soon you won't even need to plug in that iPad even once. It will be done over the air, and then all the naysayers will understand what we are talking about when we say we are living in the post-PC world.
OK, that's an extreme example since we all do have computers at home already, and it is nice to back up your iPad at least some time. But with cloud computing coming very quickly in the Apple world, soon you won't even need to plug in that iPad even once. It will be done over the air, and then all the naysayers will understand what we are talking about when we say we are living in the post-PC world.
JackAxe
Apr 21, 05:44 AM
Its amazing how all those "smart" Android users are still poorer than the average iOS user, and spend less than the average iOS user.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
WOW! What an incredibly stupid post!
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
WOW! What an incredibly stupid post!
Lesser Evets
Apr 13, 05:49 AM
$299 is impressive.
I've been saying that if they put FCX online for $79.99 I'd buy immediately. I'm confused why Apple has an online App store and yet they offer paltry bits of programming.
I've been saying that if they put FCX online for $79.99 I'd buy immediately. I'm confused why Apple has an online App store and yet they offer paltry bits of programming.
joueboy
Apr 9, 12:14 AM
Just like everybody else!
Object-X
Sep 12, 05:27 PM
I really don't understand all the comments about why doesn't it have a DVD player, or it doesn't have Tivo capabilities, ect. I really think you all are missing the point: it is designed to eventually replace all those technologies. OK, it doesnt' do it yet, but Jobs said something very important at the end of the keynote, and that was "you can see the direction we are heading".
The whole concept here is to make DVD players, recorders, rentals, and even channel viewing irrelevant. You will purchase, subscribe, rent?, and control all media content on your computer and simply stream it to an HDTV.
Does it support HDTV resolutions? Not yet, but I'm sure it will. Remember, iTV is a direction, not the end of the road.
So, the complaints are more or less becaues we are impatient and want it all now. This is just a start. If done right, this concept of computer, iTunes Store, and iTV could replace cable and satellite TV service. Why screw around trying to record shows, edit commercials, ect. when you can just get and control your content easily and simply with your computer?
I like this whole idea. I can see cable news channels offering their content via TVcasts that you can subscribe too, and other network channels offering their media libraries for download or even rental; and the iTunes Store will basically act as the purchasing hub. Want Monday nights football game? Just subscribe to it on iTunes and it will download automatically and you can watch it whenever. Who needs Tivo? Don't need 200 channels of crap? Just download the stuff you want to watch and have your own media library. Who needs cable and commercials?
The whole concept here is to make DVD players, recorders, rentals, and even channel viewing irrelevant. You will purchase, subscribe, rent?, and control all media content on your computer and simply stream it to an HDTV.
Does it support HDTV resolutions? Not yet, but I'm sure it will. Remember, iTV is a direction, not the end of the road.
So, the complaints are more or less becaues we are impatient and want it all now. This is just a start. If done right, this concept of computer, iTunes Store, and iTV could replace cable and satellite TV service. Why screw around trying to record shows, edit commercials, ect. when you can just get and control your content easily and simply with your computer?
I like this whole idea. I can see cable news channels offering their content via TVcasts that you can subscribe too, and other network channels offering their media libraries for download or even rental; and the iTunes Store will basically act as the purchasing hub. Want Monday nights football game? Just subscribe to it on iTunes and it will download automatically and you can watch it whenever. Who needs Tivo? Don't need 200 channels of crap? Just download the stuff you want to watch and have your own media library. Who needs cable and commercials?
Rocketman
Sep 26, 01:12 PM
How many "page outs" per second does your system do? If you have enough RAM not many. Even those few writes DO go into RAM. There is likey a large RAM cache built into the disk drive. As for "page ins" they mostly come from your Applcations Folder, not the swap space. Mac OSX is smart enough to know that it does not need to write RAM pages to swap space if the RAM page contains only executable code. If you want to make the system go faster you would put your applactions in the solid state SATA so as to speed up page ins. But if space is limited a better way would be to put only the applactions you are currently using in the solid state SATA but to go even faster why not skip the bottleneck of the SATA interface and put the RAM that would have gone into the solid state SATA on your system bus. This is what modern computers do. They maintain a RAM cache of the disk(s). With the data (cache of the disk) in system RAM it need not even move. The OS simply does some "magic" with mapping registers and the data appera to move without need of any physical copy. A write to a register is more than 1000 times faster then moving data off a sold state SAYA drive.
The ONLY cases where a solid state SATA disk could improve performance is (1) if you have already maxed out the computer's system RAM and need to add even more. So either your Mac Pro is at 16MB or you imac is at 3GB and you need more. or (2) You have a huge abount of dta to process and you put the data in the solid state drive. This means the drive will be hugely expensive. Cheaper to use something like a SAN storage.
I snipped nothing.
The specific examples I refer to are putting applications in RAM, wherever that ram might be (ramdisc of main memory, ram based solid state drive on the drive bus, or memory drive on the graphics bus). Some applications greatly benefit from residing in RAM, such as compilers or image manipulators. Photoshop uses alot of swap space so you would need large ramdrives to benefit. I mainly am an advocate of ramdrives and see them underused in applications that would clearly benefit. Apple could gain some marketing points by simply offering such an option then bragging about it on TV of how a Mac is 20x as fast as a (stock) Dell :)
Rocketman
The ONLY cases where a solid state SATA disk could improve performance is (1) if you have already maxed out the computer's system RAM and need to add even more. So either your Mac Pro is at 16MB or you imac is at 3GB and you need more. or (2) You have a huge abount of dta to process and you put the data in the solid state drive. This means the drive will be hugely expensive. Cheaper to use something like a SAN storage.
I snipped nothing.
The specific examples I refer to are putting applications in RAM, wherever that ram might be (ramdisc of main memory, ram based solid state drive on the drive bus, or memory drive on the graphics bus). Some applications greatly benefit from residing in RAM, such as compilers or image manipulators. Photoshop uses alot of swap space so you would need large ramdrives to benefit. I mainly am an advocate of ramdrives and see them underused in applications that would clearly benefit. Apple could gain some marketing points by simply offering such an option then bragging about it on TV of how a Mac is 20x as fast as a (stock) Dell :)
Rocketman
Bill McEnaney
Apr 26, 10:25 PM
It's quite possible they are "miraculous" recoveries. "Miraculous' as in exceedingly rare. Gabrielle Giffords survived a point-blank gunshot to the head. Is that the work of divine intervention? Or is it simply a matter that if you shot a number of people in the head, a very small fraction would survive? Likewise, among the millions of people with cancer, it shouldn't come as a surprise to find a small fraction that beat the odds to make a remarkable recovery. If Purell kills 99.99% of bacteria, does that make the .01% of survivors "miracles"?
In this video, there's a doctor who may doubt that Giffords got a miracle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgVnjJLarwk
In this video, there's a doctor who may doubt that Giffords got a miracle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgVnjJLarwk
eleven59
Apr 10, 11:00 AM
This must be me but I've never cared to have a program maximized on my Mac... Not even games. I always prefer to see multiple programs so I can click easily on any when needed.... It's also nice that just hovering over one let's you scroll thru it without actually clicking on it....
And resizing.. That takes me less than a second to drag and resize a window to what I want it to be.. if I even have to
And resizing.. That takes me less than a second to drag and resize a window to what I want it to be.. if I even have to
gugy
Sep 20, 06:22 PM
I think the ITV just needs to be able to stream video (HDTV and standard), Photos and music.
My Mac is the hub, a place where I can record my TV shows using elgato and then stream it to ITV. Use itunes to buy movies, tv shows and music and then stream it to my ITV.
Simplicity is the key. I don't need ITV to have a superdrive or DVD. I have that on my Mac. Plus everybody nowadays have their own DVD player on the entertainment room. I have Laserdisc player, CD player, VHS, dishnetwork DVR and a receiver. I am not planning to get rid of anything.
ITV will be a nice addition to my entertainment system to do a single specific thing: Talk to my Mac on the other room wirelessly or by Ethernet. That's all folks.
My Mac is the hub, a place where I can record my TV shows using elgato and then stream it to ITV. Use itunes to buy movies, tv shows and music and then stream it to my ITV.
Simplicity is the key. I don't need ITV to have a superdrive or DVD. I have that on my Mac. Plus everybody nowadays have their own DVD player on the entertainment room. I have Laserdisc player, CD player, VHS, dishnetwork DVR and a receiver. I am not planning to get rid of anything.
ITV will be a nice addition to my entertainment system to do a single specific thing: Talk to my Mac on the other room wirelessly or by Ethernet. That's all folks.
GGJstudios
May 2, 11:36 AM
4. Run a Spotlight search for "MACDefender" to check for any associated files that might still be lingering
That's a sure way *not* to find any related files.
The only effective method for complete app removal is manual deletion:
Best way to FULLY DELETE a program (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11171082&postcount=16)
One thing Macs need anti-virus is to scan mails for Windows viruses, so that those doesn't to you PC. That is all.
That doesn't protect Windows PCs from malware from other sources, which is a far greater threat than receiving files from a Mac. Each Windows user should be running their own anti-virus, to protect them from malware from all sources.
Yes so much. Because Malware can copy itself and infect a computer.
No, only a virus can do that. A trojan requires user involvement to spread.
So few virus for MAC than when one appears it is news... :)
This isn't a virus.
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X and that "malware" is a Windows-only problem.
I agree. While no Mac OS X viruses exist at this time, that doesn't mean they won't in the future. And malware has always been a threat. What's important is to understand the kinds of threats and the most effective methods for protection.
The fact is, the days of viruses are long gone.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Just when you do, someone will release a new virus into the wild. While they may not be as prevalent as they once were, they're by no means extinct.
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
The best defense a Mac user has against current malware threats is education and common sense. Understanding the basic differences between a virus, trojan, worm, and other types of malware will help a user defend against them. Doing simple things like unchecking the "Open "safe" files after downloading" option is quite effective.
I despise the "X is a file downloaded from the Internet" dialog introduced in SL. Really wish you could disable it.
That's one of the simple lines of defense for a user, as it lets them know they're about to open a newly-downloaded app. It only does that the first time you launch the app, so why bother disabling such a helpful reminder?
To the end user it makes no difference. It's fine if you know, but to a novice quickly correcting them on the difference between a virus, a trojan, or whatever else contributes approximately zero percent towards solving the problem.
Actually, it helps a user to have some understanding about malware. Part of the problem is a novice user is likely to engage in dangerous activities, such as installing pirated software, unless they know what a trojan is and how it infects a system. Also, understanding what a virus is, how it spreads, and the fact that none exist for Mac OS X will prevent them from instantly assuming that everything unexpected that happens on their Mac is the result of a virus. Also, understanding that antivirus apps can't detect a virus that doesn't yet exist will prevent them from installing AV and having a false sense of security, thinking they're immune to threats. Educating a user goes a very long way in protecting them, by teaching them to practice safe computing habits.
Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4)
That's a sure way *not* to find any related files.
The only effective method for complete app removal is manual deletion:
Best way to FULLY DELETE a program (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11171082&postcount=16)
One thing Macs need anti-virus is to scan mails for Windows viruses, so that those doesn't to you PC. That is all.
That doesn't protect Windows PCs from malware from other sources, which is a far greater threat than receiving files from a Mac. Each Windows user should be running their own anti-virus, to protect them from malware from all sources.
Yes so much. Because Malware can copy itself and infect a computer.
No, only a virus can do that. A trojan requires user involvement to spread.
So few virus for MAC than when one appears it is news... :)
This isn't a virus.
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X and that "malware" is a Windows-only problem.
I agree. While no Mac OS X viruses exist at this time, that doesn't mean they won't in the future. And malware has always been a threat. What's important is to understand the kinds of threats and the most effective methods for protection.
The fact is, the days of viruses are long gone.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Just when you do, someone will release a new virus into the wild. While they may not be as prevalent as they once were, they're by no means extinct.
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
The best defense a Mac user has against current malware threats is education and common sense. Understanding the basic differences between a virus, trojan, worm, and other types of malware will help a user defend against them. Doing simple things like unchecking the "Open "safe" files after downloading" option is quite effective.
I despise the "X is a file downloaded from the Internet" dialog introduced in SL. Really wish you could disable it.
That's one of the simple lines of defense for a user, as it lets them know they're about to open a newly-downloaded app. It only does that the first time you launch the app, so why bother disabling such a helpful reminder?
To the end user it makes no difference. It's fine if you know, but to a novice quickly correcting them on the difference between a virus, a trojan, or whatever else contributes approximately zero percent towards solving the problem.
Actually, it helps a user to have some understanding about malware. Part of the problem is a novice user is likely to engage in dangerous activities, such as installing pirated software, unless they know what a trojan is and how it infects a system. Also, understanding what a virus is, how it spreads, and the fact that none exist for Mac OS X will prevent them from instantly assuming that everything unexpected that happens on their Mac is the result of a virus. Also, understanding that antivirus apps can't detect a virus that doesn't yet exist will prevent them from installing AV and having a false sense of security, thinking they're immune to threats. Educating a user goes a very long way in protecting them, by teaching them to practice safe computing habits.
Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4)
ZilogZ80
Apr 6, 04:02 AM
Most of these "problems" are down to people not knowing how to operate their Macs. I would recommend to any new switcher (& a lot of the people who have posted in this thread!) get a good book ("The Missing Manual" is great) which explains everything you need to know.
topicolo
Jul 11, 10:27 PM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
tayldn
Oct 14, 05:38 AM
Completely agree.
Me too. (Gartner know nothing- pure guesses). Having lots of devices is going to be less and less important for Nokia and Android. Apple have shown that form factor is not that important (not as important as it was when everything on the inside was the same)- a good big screen with a thin unit is all most need now that the magic is on the inside. Consumers are not going to want to differentiate with form factor (outside) so much as the cool stuff inside- there's real personalisation going on...inside.
I really used to dislike Apple (broken ipod!). But they know how to treat developers like me. The iPhone is going to take a much bigger share of the market over the next 24 months in the UK where it's coming off exclusivity with o2. The product is better and will stay better for some time. And cheaper untis are going to hit the market very soon making this accessible to everyone. Apple'll let this thing keep growing- in the future, they'll be able to make a loss on the handset...
Reckon they've got 24 months over the other manufacturers. o2 have about 20% of the market. Apple could triple their market share quite quickly simply by going with 2 more operators. Bit rudimentary I know- but why not?
Me too. (Gartner know nothing- pure guesses). Having lots of devices is going to be less and less important for Nokia and Android. Apple have shown that form factor is not that important (not as important as it was when everything on the inside was the same)- a good big screen with a thin unit is all most need now that the magic is on the inside. Consumers are not going to want to differentiate with form factor (outside) so much as the cool stuff inside- there's real personalisation going on...inside.
I really used to dislike Apple (broken ipod!). But they know how to treat developers like me. The iPhone is going to take a much bigger share of the market over the next 24 months in the UK where it's coming off exclusivity with o2. The product is better and will stay better for some time. And cheaper untis are going to hit the market very soon making this accessible to everyone. Apple'll let this thing keep growing- in the future, they'll be able to make a loss on the handset...
Reckon they've got 24 months over the other manufacturers. o2 have about 20% of the market. Apple could triple their market share quite quickly simply by going with 2 more operators. Bit rudimentary I know- but why not?
samcraig
Mar 18, 10:56 AM
1) Why would I need an extra 2GB when I'm already Unlimited?
2) Why would I need to pay an extra $20 for 1s and 0s going from my laptop thru my phone. If I'm using the laptop, I'm not using my phone and vice versa. It's still single use.
3) Do you pay "Extra" for home internet because you have a wireless router that allows you to connect multiple PCs to the same connection?? How is tethering on a mobile phone any different??? This sets a precedence that could allow for home internet providers to charge on a per PC connect basis.
Actually - for several years - and still in some areas - you DO pay for the ability to network your home via wifi - and there is a way for the cable company to prohibit it. Not that they do/will. - but clearly they can since some areas have this as a "premium"
Next - there are things you cannot do on a phone that you can do on a computer in regards to using up bandwidth. You can't download torrents on your phone (for example). You can on a computer.
There's really little debate here. ATT is now, obviously, recognizing what they have known all along - that people are abusing their data plans. So they are taking action. It's within their right. Get over it.
2) Why would I need to pay an extra $20 for 1s and 0s going from my laptop thru my phone. If I'm using the laptop, I'm not using my phone and vice versa. It's still single use.
3) Do you pay "Extra" for home internet because you have a wireless router that allows you to connect multiple PCs to the same connection?? How is tethering on a mobile phone any different??? This sets a precedence that could allow for home internet providers to charge on a per PC connect basis.
Actually - for several years - and still in some areas - you DO pay for the ability to network your home via wifi - and there is a way for the cable company to prohibit it. Not that they do/will. - but clearly they can since some areas have this as a "premium"
Next - there are things you cannot do on a phone that you can do on a computer in regards to using up bandwidth. You can't download torrents on your phone (for example). You can on a computer.
There's really little debate here. ATT is now, obviously, recognizing what they have known all along - that people are abusing their data plans. So they are taking action. It's within their right. Get over it.
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:11 AM
Hahaha, if I doubted your gayness for one second, you really convinced me with that last part..."self-hate". (very standard, piss-poor rebuttal I get from every butt-hurt gay (no pun intended!) that feels MY views don't align with theirs)
Sorry, kiddo, I do not hate myself or my fellow gays and lesbians. AT ALL. Go ahead and step outta the glittered box you live in and learn to understand that one does NOT have to support every single aspect of this lifestyle. Are you effing crazy, dude!??
We're all quick to criticize the Apple fanboys who drink Steve's kool-aid, but guess what, I'm no "fanboy". I'm a gay male. Not an uber fan of the gay agenda that supports every bit of it. I don't. DEAL WITH IT.
How dare you say I hate myself just because I have a entirely different point of view.
Theres ways to express your opinion (even if its pretty unpopular) without stooping to this. Not Cool
Sorry, kiddo, I do not hate myself or my fellow gays and lesbians. AT ALL. Go ahead and step outta the glittered box you live in and learn to understand that one does NOT have to support every single aspect of this lifestyle. Are you effing crazy, dude!??
We're all quick to criticize the Apple fanboys who drink Steve's kool-aid, but guess what, I'm no "fanboy". I'm a gay male. Not an uber fan of the gay agenda that supports every bit of it. I don't. DEAL WITH IT.
How dare you say I hate myself just because I have a entirely different point of view.
Theres ways to express your opinion (even if its pretty unpopular) without stooping to this. Not Cool
ATD
Sep 26, 05:41 PM
Yep. :( I know of a peep on the OS X Maya forum that ended up buying the full version. I don't have the money for that sort of thing, so I'm not going to buy until the RenderMan Plug-in supports whatever 64-bit version of Maya is released in the future. Then I'll also be upgrading Maya. :)
***
You can download the eval copy to try it out.
<]=)
Glad I didn't shell out the money thinking it was. 64 bit Maya is going to be nice, I'm think its coming when OSX 10.5 hits. I got Maya 8 but have not loaded it yet.
BTW, I go to the OSX Maya forum once in while and have seen your name there. Is DD the one that got the full version?
***
You can download the eval copy to try it out.
<]=)
Glad I didn't shell out the money thinking it was. 64 bit Maya is going to be nice, I'm think its coming when OSX 10.5 hits. I got Maya 8 but have not loaded it yet.
BTW, I go to the OSX Maya forum once in while and have seen your name there. Is DD the one that got the full version?
Multimedia
Oct 9, 10:21 AM
I meant quad-core package (socket) - be it Clovertown/Woodcrest or Kentsfield/Conroe.
On a multi-threaded workflow, twice as many somewhat slower threads are better than half as many somewhat faster threads.
Of course, many desktop applications can't use four cores (or 8), and many feel "snappier" with fewer, faster cores.
_______________
In one demo at IDF, Intel showed a dual Woodie against the top Opteron.
The Woody was about 60% faster, using 80% of the power.
On stage, they swapped the Woodies with low-voltage Clovertowns which matched the power envelope of the Woodies that they removed. I think they said that the Clovertowns were 800 MHz slower than the Woodies.
With the Clovertowns, the system was 20% faster than the Woodies (even at 800 MHz slower per core), at almost exactly the same wattage (1 or 2 watts more). This made it 95% faster than the Opterons, still at 80% of the power draw.
You can see the demo at http://www.intel.com/idf/us/fall2006/webcast.htm - look for Gelsinger's keynote the second day.After watching that video I am more hyped up about getting the 8-core Mac Pro than before for my Multi-Threaded Workload. I also watched the Otellini Keynote (http://mfile.akamai.com/28603/wmv/intelstudio.download.akamai.com/10670//idf/event3/092606_pso/pso_high.wmv) and was struck by Phil Schiller's appearance where he REFUSED to utter the phrase "Core 2 Duo" with regard to the 24" iMac on stage. I was shocked and appalled that he made no mention it is Core 2 Duo. He called it a Core Duo iMac. Blows me away he forgot to say the "2" part.
I can't tell if that was intentional on his part or not. :eek:
On a multi-threaded workflow, twice as many somewhat slower threads are better than half as many somewhat faster threads.
Of course, many desktop applications can't use four cores (or 8), and many feel "snappier" with fewer, faster cores.
_______________
In one demo at IDF, Intel showed a dual Woodie against the top Opteron.
The Woody was about 60% faster, using 80% of the power.
On stage, they swapped the Woodies with low-voltage Clovertowns which matched the power envelope of the Woodies that they removed. I think they said that the Clovertowns were 800 MHz slower than the Woodies.
With the Clovertowns, the system was 20% faster than the Woodies (even at 800 MHz slower per core), at almost exactly the same wattage (1 or 2 watts more). This made it 95% faster than the Opterons, still at 80% of the power draw.
You can see the demo at http://www.intel.com/idf/us/fall2006/webcast.htm - look for Gelsinger's keynote the second day.After watching that video I am more hyped up about getting the 8-core Mac Pro than before for my Multi-Threaded Workload. I also watched the Otellini Keynote (http://mfile.akamai.com/28603/wmv/intelstudio.download.akamai.com/10670//idf/event3/092606_pso/pso_high.wmv) and was struck by Phil Schiller's appearance where he REFUSED to utter the phrase "Core 2 Duo" with regard to the 24" iMac on stage. I was shocked and appalled that he made no mention it is Core 2 Duo. He called it a Core Duo iMac. Blows me away he forgot to say the "2" part.
I can't tell if that was intentional on his part or not. :eek:
No comments:
Post a Comment