Derekasaurus
Jul 20, 05:18 PM
If you want wild speculation, here goes.... Apple might use the Conroe and ConroeXE in the first Mac Pros and then add in support for Kentsfield (quad) when it becomes available. This could well be the reason why Intel has brought forward the release of Kentsfield.
Apple is playing with the big boys now. Intel moved up Kentsfield in response to AMD's 4x4, not anything Apple might do. Intel sells hundreds of millions of CPUs per year; Apple's demand is barely above the noise.
Apple is playing with the big boys now. Intel moved up Kentsfield in response to AMD's 4x4, not anything Apple might do. Intel sells hundreds of millions of CPUs per year; Apple's demand is barely above the noise.
topmounter
Apr 6, 10:37 AM
"integrated graphics"... "good enough" LOL... I think I'll keep my current-gen 13" MBA. I didn't buy the world's most expensive netbook for "good enough".
savar
Sep 13, 07:17 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...
Older versions of OS X had severe limitations due to kernel re-entrancy...or lack thereof. There were only two locks for the entire kernel (also known as "funnels")...but Apple has revised the kernel for 10.5 and will be implementing much more granular locks, which should alleviate the re-entrancy problem.
Older versions of OS X had severe limitations due to kernel re-entrancy...or lack thereof. There were only two locks for the entire kernel (also known as "funnels")...but Apple has revised the kernel for 10.5 and will be implementing much more granular locks, which should alleviate the re-entrancy problem.
boncellis
Aug 27, 10:19 PM
What about simply rational? It's easy to become excited at the prospect of shiny new merom macs ready to hit store shelves tomorrow or tuesday, but I think that's premature. The rational part of me, which has taken over the part of me that's flipping out excited, says we'll see them within three to four weeks. I know that's disappointing to a lot of people, but if you have read through these posts, and the macforums front page, I think it's easy to surmise that that will be the case.
...
But don't be fooled by my rational side too much. I've already bought a .mac account and a cool new backpack to house my MBP when it finally does ship. I'm about ready to jump out of my skin I'm so excited.:D
Kudos to those optimists, nothing wrong with that. There's nothing really wrong with irrationality in the forum either. ;)
...
But don't be fooled by my rational side too much. I've already bought a .mac account and a cool new backpack to house my MBP when it finally does ship. I'm about ready to jump out of my skin I'm so excited.:D
Kudos to those optimists, nothing wrong with that. There's nothing really wrong with irrationality in the forum either. ;)
tumblebird
Nov 28, 11:30 PM
That Doug Morris is a slimeball. Who's to say I even own any Universal music. I listen to Indie, primarily. I buy all my music, most of it on CD which I digitize, or via the iTunes Music Store. Who is Universal to demand my dollar? Or three for that matter, one for each iPod I have purchased. There are a lot of labels out there. They can't all get a portion. Apple owes them NOTHING. Did they get music from Sony for the Walkman? How many of us listened to mix tapes from friends on those? I know that most of my tapes were mixes from records and CDs. Universal is off base and greedy. Don't let this happen, Mr. Steve Jobs! You're in the right.
milo
Jul 27, 04:07 PM
They will not replace the dual core version, they will exist as an additional product offering.
I never said otherwise. My point is they are the follow-ups to conroe and woodcrest and will use the same sockets as those two. Which means they can be swapped in, which I believe was the original question.
I never said otherwise. My point is they are the follow-ups to conroe and woodcrest and will use the same sockets as those two. Which means they can be swapped in, which I believe was the original question.
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 7, 05:43 PM
Keep that Lotus, you can use it for the British Lightweight race.
I've already done it with a....
300 kW TVR
:D
I love my TVR and my B-Spec driver actually knows how to handle it, so i've been using it as often as appropriate.
I try not to sell any cars unless they are junk (like a 97 Civic or whatever it is. Worst beginner's prize car ever) or if i have two of the same kind.
I've already done it with a....
300 kW TVR
:D
I love my TVR and my B-Spec driver actually knows how to handle it, so i've been using it as often as appropriate.
I try not to sell any cars unless they are junk (like a 97 Civic or whatever it is. Worst beginner's prize car ever) or if i have two of the same kind.
Multimedia
Jul 23, 08:28 PM
So you don't expect the Mac Pro at WWDC?? Or only a dual core version using Conroe?
I agree single Woodcrest doesn't make sense. So we have two options for Quad core - Dual Woodcrest and single Kentsfield. Of course 2xWodcrest is going to be more expensive but I wonder by how much more. I am guessing $400. But, if you do that, you have the same motherboard across the Mac Pro (and possibly shared with XServe as well) and for that $400 you also get FB-DIMM and higher RAM ceiling. Also, the same platform can be used with Clovertown to scale to 8 core workstation early Q1'07. If Kentsfield is used then 4 core is the end of the line.Not really. Yorkfield is the 8 core follow on to Kentsfield in the Conroe class motherboard. Should be shipping by next Spring.So I don't expect Mac Pro to exclusively use Conroe/Kentsfield. Either two different boards - Conroe/Kentsfield on the low end and Woodcrest/Clovertown on the high end. Or Woodcrest/Clovertown across the board. Given the reasons above, I expect it will be the latter.Given the above reasons, I expect it will be the former. The whole line will be Conroe based EXCEPT for the ONE top model which will be based on a Woodcrest MoBo etc so each time the top doubles it's core count from 4 to 8 then 16, the lower models double theirs from 2 to 4 then 8, all in less than a year from now.Conroe deserves to be in the Apple lineup. I expect it will be in the upgraded (perhaps a larger i.e. 23") iMac. Apple may also release another desktop to fill the gap between the Mini and the Pro. That option has been discussed here as well.I think it's safe to say we may witness the fastest acceleration in affordable computing power in the history of personal computing during this next year.
I agree single Woodcrest doesn't make sense. So we have two options for Quad core - Dual Woodcrest and single Kentsfield. Of course 2xWodcrest is going to be more expensive but I wonder by how much more. I am guessing $400. But, if you do that, you have the same motherboard across the Mac Pro (and possibly shared with XServe as well) and for that $400 you also get FB-DIMM and higher RAM ceiling. Also, the same platform can be used with Clovertown to scale to 8 core workstation early Q1'07. If Kentsfield is used then 4 core is the end of the line.Not really. Yorkfield is the 8 core follow on to Kentsfield in the Conroe class motherboard. Should be shipping by next Spring.So I don't expect Mac Pro to exclusively use Conroe/Kentsfield. Either two different boards - Conroe/Kentsfield on the low end and Woodcrest/Clovertown on the high end. Or Woodcrest/Clovertown across the board. Given the reasons above, I expect it will be the latter.Given the above reasons, I expect it will be the former. The whole line will be Conroe based EXCEPT for the ONE top model which will be based on a Woodcrest MoBo etc so each time the top doubles it's core count from 4 to 8 then 16, the lower models double theirs from 2 to 4 then 8, all in less than a year from now.Conroe deserves to be in the Apple lineup. I expect it will be in the upgraded (perhaps a larger i.e. 23") iMac. Apple may also release another desktop to fill the gap between the Mini and the Pro. That option has been discussed here as well.I think it's safe to say we may witness the fastest acceleration in affordable computing power in the history of personal computing during this next year.
SWC
Aug 7, 08:01 PM
great . . . i just get a new macbook with tiger now i'm gonna have to get leopard . . . how much will this put me back?
$129 is history proves true
$129 is history proves true
AppliedVisual
Oct 15, 12:59 PM
Why would Apple show their Clovertown workstations after HP and not simultaneusly with HP?
Because that's usually how it works. :confused:
HP is Intel's main launch partner for the quad-core Xeon and I think they have secured the first of the major shipments.
Because that's usually how it works. :confused:
HP is Intel's main launch partner for the quad-core Xeon and I think they have secured the first of the major shipments.
orthorim
Apr 9, 01:24 AM
The trouble is .. I find the TDP numbers for Sandy Bridge very misleading. For example the previous i7 2.66Ghz dual core had a TDP of 35W and the current i7 2.2Ghz quad core has a TDP of 45W. Theoretically, it should only use 10W more when doing CPU intensive task, but according to anandtech who measured the task, the i7 Sandy Bridge Quad core was using almost 40W more when running cinebench.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/14
It just doesn't make any sense. Going by those figures, if the i7 dual core was 35W, the i7 Sandy Bridge quad core would be around 70W.
Not sure how this relates to potential MacBook Air Sandy Bridge processors, but keep in mind.. there must be a reason why Samsung went for the ULV processor in their 13" laptop instead of the LV one.
TDP != Max power draw
The quad uses less than double the power of the older dual core when fully loaded - that makes perfect sense. It's getting more than double done when fully loaded too, so it's 4 cores -and- improvements in power usage and efficiency. That's exactly what I'd expect from the next generation product.
Under normal use he 2011 mbp gets better battery life too. Hmm.... Maybe I'll get one after all, looks very compelling. Even if Illl have to hack the opti bay.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/14
It just doesn't make any sense. Going by those figures, if the i7 dual core was 35W, the i7 Sandy Bridge quad core would be around 70W.
Not sure how this relates to potential MacBook Air Sandy Bridge processors, but keep in mind.. there must be a reason why Samsung went for the ULV processor in their 13" laptop instead of the LV one.
TDP != Max power draw
The quad uses less than double the power of the older dual core when fully loaded - that makes perfect sense. It's getting more than double done when fully loaded too, so it's 4 cores -and- improvements in power usage and efficiency. That's exactly what I'd expect from the next generation product.
Under normal use he 2011 mbp gets better battery life too. Hmm.... Maybe I'll get one after all, looks very compelling. Even if Illl have to hack the opti bay.
michaelrjohnson
Jul 27, 10:03 AM
Rule 1 of Apple Events:
You never get all the marbles.
Very very wise, Chundles. You are correct.
(In other words, they're always disappointing on some level to someone.) :)
You never get all the marbles.
Very very wise, Chundles. You are correct.
(In other words, they're always disappointing on some level to someone.) :)
Snowy_River
Jul 30, 02:08 AM
It looks pretty good! The extra room would allow for the 3.5" HDD and a dedicated GPU--making it a "true" media center.
Not to nitpick, but maybe it would only have to be 1.5x wider rather than 2x wide. Either way, I think it's pretty cool. Thanks! ;)
I think that the bigger issue with Dan=='s design (full credit and kudos for the idea!) is that the Mac Mini is so small that it only uses laptop components. If you want to have a full-size optical drive or a full-size hard drive, you need to use a larger form factor. This is part of the reason for the size of my design.
Here's a comparison in sizes (I've also changed the floor because my wife thought that the reflection was confusing...)
http://www.ghwphoto.com/3MacsFrontSm.png
http://www.ghwphoto.com/3MacsBackSm.png
Cheers!
Not to nitpick, but maybe it would only have to be 1.5x wider rather than 2x wide. Either way, I think it's pretty cool. Thanks! ;)
I think that the bigger issue with Dan=='s design (full credit and kudos for the idea!) is that the Mac Mini is so small that it only uses laptop components. If you want to have a full-size optical drive or a full-size hard drive, you need to use a larger form factor. This is part of the reason for the size of my design.
Here's a comparison in sizes (I've also changed the floor because my wife thought that the reflection was confusing...)
http://www.ghwphoto.com/3MacsFrontSm.png
http://www.ghwphoto.com/3MacsBackSm.png
Cheers!
maclaptop
Apr 11, 04:51 PM
Where are all these bs claims coming from? Why wouldn't Apple release it in June as always?
I believe there are several factors at work causing this most likely time frame.
1) The effects of Japans disaster on parts supply.
2) Internal issues at Apple regarding more than one model being undecided.
3) Final touches being added to iOS5
Frankly I'd rather have a delay if it meant that Apple's going to make this one their best, most well debugged iPhone to date.
Their is no substitute for excellent final checks through quality control.
I believe there are several factors at work causing this most likely time frame.
1) The effects of Japans disaster on parts supply.
2) Internal issues at Apple regarding more than one model being undecided.
3) Final touches being added to iOS5
Frankly I'd rather have a delay if it meant that Apple's going to make this one their best, most well debugged iPhone to date.
Their is no substitute for excellent final checks through quality control.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 02:26 PM
That is totally reasonable and understandable, although I do disagree. I can't with good heart support sending my neighbors son/daughter overseas to fight for another people.
Well, we have allies, don't we? I simply consider the UN an attempt to permanently ally the world's nations to the extent that these sort of situations can be dealt with based on broader consensus. We are far from the ideal, but we must keep working towards it and an imperfect UN is better than no UN at all.
I just find it pretty disgusting when we have the VP going on the record talking out his arse about "Unless we are attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked", then a couple years later nary a peep when we start bombing a foreign country that is not even close to a threat to us. Did Biden qualify it with a " we should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions." NOPE!
I'm not going to defend Biden, he puts his foot in his mouth quite a bit - though he is FAR from the only politician in Washingotn with that problem. Besides, unlike Cheney, he is very much playing second fiddle in the administration (actually he's so far down the pecking order only fiddles when someone lends him one, if I can stretch that saying to the breaking point).
It is worth remembering that the Bush Administration sent that clown Bolton as our representative to the UN - a man who opposes that organization's very existence. Incredibly counterproductive. No, I expect hypocrisy from both Democrats and Republicans.
I think it all boils down to whether you buy into the notion that the UN is a global representative body. If you do, then sending troops to enforce UN resolutions is not just fighting for "other people" but fighting for ouselves. If member nations took the concept of the UN more seriously, UN resolutions alone might be enough to stabilize situations like this without the need for major military intervention.
Well, we have allies, don't we? I simply consider the UN an attempt to permanently ally the world's nations to the extent that these sort of situations can be dealt with based on broader consensus. We are far from the ideal, but we must keep working towards it and an imperfect UN is better than no UN at all.
I just find it pretty disgusting when we have the VP going on the record talking out his arse about "Unless we are attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked", then a couple years later nary a peep when we start bombing a foreign country that is not even close to a threat to us. Did Biden qualify it with a " we should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions." NOPE!
I'm not going to defend Biden, he puts his foot in his mouth quite a bit - though he is FAR from the only politician in Washingotn with that problem. Besides, unlike Cheney, he is very much playing second fiddle in the administration (actually he's so far down the pecking order only fiddles when someone lends him one, if I can stretch that saying to the breaking point).
It is worth remembering that the Bush Administration sent that clown Bolton as our representative to the UN - a man who opposes that organization's very existence. Incredibly counterproductive. No, I expect hypocrisy from both Democrats and Republicans.
I think it all boils down to whether you buy into the notion that the UN is a global representative body. If you do, then sending troops to enforce UN resolutions is not just fighting for "other people" but fighting for ouselves. If member nations took the concept of the UN more seriously, UN resolutions alone might be enough to stabilize situations like this without the need for major military intervention.
Man9z0r
Apr 5, 05:01 PM
I hope this to be true. I have been wanting to get this software!
New to video and have heard a lot of good things. :eek:
New to video and have heard a lot of good things. :eek:
-SD-
Aug 18, 05:14 AM
So Japan is getting GT5 on November 3rd too, but at least they get a nifty Titanium Blue console and Ltd Edition game bundle. (http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/18/ps3-gets-titanium-blue-makeover-for-gran-turismo-5-launch-bundle/)
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/08/10x08189ub234tewfja.jpg
:apple:
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/08/10x08189ub234tewfja.jpg
:apple:
samcraig
Apr 27, 08:51 AM
Ok then show me where it says that turning location services off will not stop the tracking. I've scanned the articles and did not find anything that said that. If it does still track when you turn it off, I'd like to know.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704123204576283580249161342.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704123204576283580249161342.html
netdog
Aug 11, 02:45 PM
I would not consider the entire United States to be just a small pocket on the planet.
In terms of the global mobile market, it is.
The network coverage in America is just awful too. Until I moved to England, I thought that mobile communications were generally problematic. Now I realize that American cellular service just sucks. Even in NYC.
America should have gotten on board with everyone else when networks apportioned and specified that the infrastructure must be GSM. Instead, though bandwidth is not really an open market, but is strictly regulate, they left it up to the providers to implement what they wanted. Now the USA is paying the price as the GSM network is way behind, and Qualcomm's CDMA has been rendered somewhat obsolete given that the rest of the world (other than Taiwan?) has rejected it.
In terms of the global mobile market, it is.
The network coverage in America is just awful too. Until I moved to England, I thought that mobile communications were generally problematic. Now I realize that American cellular service just sucks. Even in NYC.
America should have gotten on board with everyone else when networks apportioned and specified that the infrastructure must be GSM. Instead, though bandwidth is not really an open market, but is strictly regulate, they left it up to the providers to implement what they wanted. Now the USA is paying the price as the GSM network is way behind, and Qualcomm's CDMA has been rendered somewhat obsolete given that the rest of the world (other than Taiwan?) has rejected it.
NAG
Mar 31, 03:37 PM
I was just pointing out that the code is still open, even if some have to wait longer than has been the case. I'm not saying everything is golden and Google are a paragon of virtue, this is certainly a bit of a sly move on their part.
You're moving the goal posts. That always has been the wonderful thing about the words "open" and "free" with respect to software. They never really meant much but had such loaded connotations. You can change the definition mid-argument as easily as you change what hat you're wearing.
I cannot help shake the feeling that some of the vitriol from certain people is the fear that a more coherent and unified Android ecosystem is an even bigger threat to the iOS platform.
You know, projecting isn't healthy at all.
You're moving the goal posts. That always has been the wonderful thing about the words "open" and "free" with respect to software. They never really meant much but had such loaded connotations. You can change the definition mid-argument as easily as you change what hat you're wearing.
I cannot help shake the feeling that some of the vitriol from certain people is the fear that a more coherent and unified Android ecosystem is an even bigger threat to the iOS platform.
You know, projecting isn't healthy at all.
REDolution
Apr 10, 04:20 AM
All the rumours appear to be about FCP8, does anyone else think that DVDSP, STP, Motion, Compressor and Color have all been left as is?
mkruck
Apr 6, 04:18 PM
Isn't it amazing that so many of these XOOM owners also, coincidentally, "own" an iPad/iPad 2, or their spouse/mom/dog/significant other does?
Either there's a lot of exaggerating (astroturfing) going on, or someone's spouse/mom/dog/significant other has a lot more sense. ;)
Why, I own an iPad and a XOOM and a Galaxy Tab and that HP Windows 7 Slate thingy and a Nook and a prototype PlayBook and I can tell you from personal experience that the iPad is like 100x better than all of those! :rolleyes:
What's so amazing about it? We're talking $400 - $600 devices, and in the case of the Nook Color that I rooted, $200. You don't have to be Daddy Warbucks to own technology.
If you'd like, I'll line up all three tablets and take a picture for you. I'll even put my dogs in the picture. :)
Either there's a lot of exaggerating (astroturfing) going on, or someone's spouse/mom/dog/significant other has a lot more sense. ;)
Why, I own an iPad and a XOOM and a Galaxy Tab and that HP Windows 7 Slate thingy and a Nook and a prototype PlayBook and I can tell you from personal experience that the iPad is like 100x better than all of those! :rolleyes:
What's so amazing about it? We're talking $400 - $600 devices, and in the case of the Nook Color that I rooted, $200. You don't have to be Daddy Warbucks to own technology.
If you'd like, I'll line up all three tablets and take a picture for you. I'll even put my dogs in the picture. :)
Cameront9
Aug 7, 06:35 PM
I am not hearing impaired, but I often watch TV and movies with the closed captioning on. I cannot really say what about it makes it more enjoyable to me--no one has ever understood why I do it, maybe it has to do with how I process information (I do have trouble listening in lecture classes, maybe a learning disability etc.), but my point is to say that I am also interested in getting closed captioning on iTunes shows.
I wrote to Apple on the feedback part of their web-site about this. I was wondering if you might know better what the law is about closed captioning. I always assumed it was required for network television shows. Is it not for network shows that appear online?
Anyhow, it's functionality I would definitely like to see.
Online is a grey area because it's new...
I'm not completely familiar with Closed Captioning laws. I believe all new TVs are required to have a Closed-Captioning decoder, and I think that all Network shows (and maybe cable-based, too) have to be captioned.
A quick Google gives this:
http://www.captions.org/caplaw.cfm
Which explains in more detail...
Regardless, I have seen a number of hearing-impaired users comment on the issue before. It would be so simple to implement, after all...
I wrote to Apple on the feedback part of their web-site about this. I was wondering if you might know better what the law is about closed captioning. I always assumed it was required for network television shows. Is it not for network shows that appear online?
Anyhow, it's functionality I would definitely like to see.
Online is a grey area because it's new...
I'm not completely familiar with Closed Captioning laws. I believe all new TVs are required to have a Closed-Captioning decoder, and I think that all Network shows (and maybe cable-based, too) have to be captioned.
A quick Google gives this:
http://www.captions.org/caplaw.cfm
Which explains in more detail...
Regardless, I have seen a number of hearing-impaired users comment on the issue before. It would be so simple to implement, after all...
aafuss1
Aug 6, 05:31 PM
Why sell a new keyboard for front row, if you can sell a new Mac to the same person? Including the sensor in the Cinema Displays would enable Apple to sell more of their display, on which they probably have a very good profit margin (when you compare to other manufacturers).
They could also just put it into the tower. Even if that is under the desk, it might not be that much of a problem. In my experience the sensor responds very nicely to the remote even if the line of sight between them is somewhat obstructed.
However the best solution I think, was suggested by someone on these forums. I don't know, whether it has been quoted here already, because I did not go through all the messages. This poster suggested to combine the sensor with an external iSight. That could be connected to any monitor and would probably have a good IR reception because of beeing on top of the monitor and thus very exposed.
Apple would make the IR and iSight work on XP-first under Boot Camp and on PC's
They could also just put it into the tower. Even if that is under the desk, it might not be that much of a problem. In my experience the sensor responds very nicely to the remote even if the line of sight between them is somewhat obstructed.
However the best solution I think, was suggested by someone on these forums. I don't know, whether it has been quoted here already, because I did not go through all the messages. This poster suggested to combine the sensor with an external iSight. That could be connected to any monitor and would probably have a good IR reception because of beeing on top of the monitor and thus very exposed.
Apple would make the IR and iSight work on XP-first under Boot Camp and on PC's
No comments:
Post a Comment