tortoise
Aug 23, 03:04 PM
Do you have a reference showing that this translates to better performance in real-world application tests in a head to head competition?
Not handy, since a lot of this happened on mailing lists.
The short version is that the memory performance scales in a very sub-linear fashion as a function of the number of cores being used, whereas Opteron scalability is almost linear up to a large number of cores. The good news is that for single dual-core processors the memory performance is on par with dual-core Opterons and their in-cache performance can be better. The bad news is that this performance does not hold as you scale cores in a system. So for some applications (e.g. those that live mostly in cache) the Woodcrest processors will be mildly faster than Opterons, but for most the performance is about even in real app benchmarks.
I've seen fairly comprehensive benchmarks for both databases and scientific computing applications, both of which thoroughly exercise the memory subsystem. Even though a single Intel core theoretically has more bandwidth, the high latency means that the real bandwidth is about the same as the slower Opterons (which have real bandwidth that approaches theoretical) and the cross-sectional bandwidth of Opterons when you get up to 4 cores and higher is much higher since the scaling is almost linear with the number of cores. For Intel, I think it was the case that a bigger cache was a cheaper design choice than a truly scalable memory subsystem. As a result, they will have different competencies. Some types of floating point codes should run very well on Intel.
Not handy, since a lot of this happened on mailing lists.
The short version is that the memory performance scales in a very sub-linear fashion as a function of the number of cores being used, whereas Opteron scalability is almost linear up to a large number of cores. The good news is that for single dual-core processors the memory performance is on par with dual-core Opterons and their in-cache performance can be better. The bad news is that this performance does not hold as you scale cores in a system. So for some applications (e.g. those that live mostly in cache) the Woodcrest processors will be mildly faster than Opterons, but for most the performance is about even in real app benchmarks.
I've seen fairly comprehensive benchmarks for both databases and scientific computing applications, both of which thoroughly exercise the memory subsystem. Even though a single Intel core theoretically has more bandwidth, the high latency means that the real bandwidth is about the same as the slower Opterons (which have real bandwidth that approaches theoretical) and the cross-sectional bandwidth of Opterons when you get up to 4 cores and higher is much higher since the scaling is almost linear with the number of cores. For Intel, I think it was the case that a bigger cache was a cheaper design choice than a truly scalable memory subsystem. As a result, they will have different competencies. Some types of floating point codes should run very well on Intel.
starflyer
Apr 25, 02:04 PM
This is why we need a "loser pays" system.
ssk2
Mar 22, 04:40 PM
You know, on second thought....there never will be an iPad "killer".
Show me a single tablet, from any manufacturer...that will out-sell the iPad.
You can't.
Which of the announced competitors will sell over 15 million in a year? To be the iPad killer...something will have to sell at least 15 million...and that was before iPad2 was released.
Even if you take into account something that has not been announced yet...you can't find an iPad killer. There are too many competitors to the throne...how can the public differentiate between the competitors, some of which are the same thing hardware and software wise....and pick one that will be the "killer".
There has not been an iPhone killer released ever....there has not been an iPod killer released ever...and there will not be an iPad killer released...ever.
And yes, the Android fanboi cult will chime in and tout the latest and greatest...which will be superseded in two weeks by something else from HTC or Motorola or whoever...if any of these are the killer..why are their sales so much lower than a comparative iDevice?
And don't toss me total number of Android sales or activations....show me a single model from any manufacturer that has sold greater than any comparable Apple portable device (iPad, iPhone, iPod)....there isn't one.
(awaiting the "sales don't matter" comments...and "specs are where its at" dribble.....)
This is EXACTLY what I was talking about in my first post on this thread - fanboyism at its worst.
"There will never be an iPad killer"? What a ridiculous statement to make. Who knows where mobile tablet computing is heading in the next 1/2/3/10 years. Maybe demand for small tablets will rise? Maybe other operating systems will outstrip iOS? You knows how many units ANY particular tablet will sell next year? It so dismaying to see such a ridiculous view spouted as gospel.
And anyway, why the obsession with a 'killer'? People don't use a Dyson vacuum cleaner because its a Bosch vacuum killer, people don't use chopsticks because they are cutlery killers, hell, apply the analogy to anything. People will ALWAYS pick (rabid fanboys aside) the consumer tool that works best for them. If that means that I find the Playbook fits my needs, I don't give two hoots if it's not an iPad killer. It really doesn't matter to the sane individual.
FWIW, I believe that for all its failings, Android's spread across many developer platforms DOES have its benefits - who knows, we may seem a really strong Android OS this time next year?
Show me a single tablet, from any manufacturer...that will out-sell the iPad.
You can't.
Which of the announced competitors will sell over 15 million in a year? To be the iPad killer...something will have to sell at least 15 million...and that was before iPad2 was released.
Even if you take into account something that has not been announced yet...you can't find an iPad killer. There are too many competitors to the throne...how can the public differentiate between the competitors, some of which are the same thing hardware and software wise....and pick one that will be the "killer".
There has not been an iPhone killer released ever....there has not been an iPod killer released ever...and there will not be an iPad killer released...ever.
And yes, the Android fanboi cult will chime in and tout the latest and greatest...which will be superseded in two weeks by something else from HTC or Motorola or whoever...if any of these are the killer..why are their sales so much lower than a comparative iDevice?
And don't toss me total number of Android sales or activations....show me a single model from any manufacturer that has sold greater than any comparable Apple portable device (iPad, iPhone, iPod)....there isn't one.
(awaiting the "sales don't matter" comments...and "specs are where its at" dribble.....)
This is EXACTLY what I was talking about in my first post on this thread - fanboyism at its worst.
"There will never be an iPad killer"? What a ridiculous statement to make. Who knows where mobile tablet computing is heading in the next 1/2/3/10 years. Maybe demand for small tablets will rise? Maybe other operating systems will outstrip iOS? You knows how many units ANY particular tablet will sell next year? It so dismaying to see such a ridiculous view spouted as gospel.
And anyway, why the obsession with a 'killer'? People don't use a Dyson vacuum cleaner because its a Bosch vacuum killer, people don't use chopsticks because they are cutlery killers, hell, apply the analogy to anything. People will ALWAYS pick (rabid fanboys aside) the consumer tool that works best for them. If that means that I find the Playbook fits my needs, I don't give two hoots if it's not an iPad killer. It really doesn't matter to the sane individual.
FWIW, I believe that for all its failings, Android's spread across many developer platforms DOES have its benefits - who knows, we may seem a really strong Android OS this time next year?
Chris Bangle
Aug 11, 10:14 AM
We always have "next tuesday"
WildCowboy
Aug 17, 01:43 AM
lol you mac folk and your photoshop :D
let's get some game benchmarks :rolleyes:
A lot of folks are waiting for game benchmarks...bring 'em on!
let's get some game benchmarks :rolleyes:
A lot of folks are waiting for game benchmarks...bring 'em on!
Val-kyrie
Jul 30, 01:22 PM
So are we really going to get ALL of these new toys come WWDC? Leopard preview, Merom laptops, Core2/Woodcrest Mac Pros, Core2 Imacs (oh, and maybe a movie download add to iTunes) That sounds like an awful lot of stuff to cover in such a short period of time. What do people think about timelines for introduction here?
Doubtful. This would leave nothing for September. (I hope this hasn't already been said, but I want to post before reading the other 200+ via modem). My prediction is the debut of Mac Pros, a preview of Leopard and perhaps an iMac update. The Merom chips will not be shipped until the end of Aug., so expect the unveiling of the MBPs in a (slightly) new form factor with 64 bit Core 2 Duo in Sep., along with the silent update of MBs, and an iMac update if they are not updated in Aug. I have not a clue about movie updates or updates to the iPod lines, though by Sep. would be reasonable.
Doubtful. This would leave nothing for September. (I hope this hasn't already been said, but I want to post before reading the other 200+ via modem). My prediction is the debut of Mac Pros, a preview of Leopard and perhaps an iMac update. The Merom chips will not be shipped until the end of Aug., so expect the unveiling of the MBPs in a (slightly) new form factor with 64 bit Core 2 Duo in Sep., along with the silent update of MBs, and an iMac update if they are not updated in Aug. I have not a clue about movie updates or updates to the iPod lines, though by Sep. would be reasonable.
LegendKillerUK
Apr 6, 02:34 PM
That's a common misreading of what Jobs said.
iOS was developed for the phone first.
As Jobs explained, there was a simple UI demo done on a touch device originally designed to be a keyboard input prototype. That demo gave him the idea to go all touch on the iPhone. That's what he meant by "the tablet came first".
Since we know that during summer/fall the first iPhone UI concepts were done using iPods with wheels, his touch "eureka" moment probably came in late with the UI demo almost certainly done under OSX.
According to all known histories, the actual creation of iOS didn't begin until 2006. Prior to that, some at Apple were still proposing using Linux for the phone OS.
But he then said after how well it would work on the phone, they put the tablet project on the shelf and focused on the phone as it was more important. Which means it was a tablet and no just a touch screen device in the beginning.
iOS was developed for the phone first.
As Jobs explained, there was a simple UI demo done on a touch device originally designed to be a keyboard input prototype. That demo gave him the idea to go all touch on the iPhone. That's what he meant by "the tablet came first".
Since we know that during summer/fall the first iPhone UI concepts were done using iPods with wheels, his touch "eureka" moment probably came in late with the UI demo almost certainly done under OSX.
According to all known histories, the actual creation of iOS didn't begin until 2006. Prior to that, some at Apple were still proposing using Linux for the phone OS.
But he then said after how well it would work on the phone, they put the tablet project on the shelf and focused on the phone as it was more important. Which means it was a tablet and no just a touch screen device in the beginning.
Frobozz
Mar 31, 02:38 PM
The best way to achieve a user friendly platform is to control it. Period. And since we know Google can't possibly be naive enough to think Android would really be "open," one can conclude this was planned. If you gain enough steam, you can start getting hardware vendors reliant on your platform. At which point, you tighten the strings to create a consistent and satisfying user experience.
I have used Honeycomb. There are nice features to it, just as there are nice features to Android. But I felt like I had to "learn" Android. I have never felt that way with iOS. Although advanced features can be opaque, the navigation and interaction model are intuitive and simple. They are based on real world gestures and interactions. That makes the learning curve less severe. Android doesn't really do this. It attempts to shove desktop metaphors and all the mess that comes with it. User's don't want to interact with the file system. They don't want to have to have 3 or 4 ways to achieve the same tasks; case in point, application switching. And, just like windows, everything seems to be buried under a pile of menus.
Google hasn't figured out UI design yet. They don't know how to conceptualize an experience FIRST, and implement features later. They are talented developers, but they don't understand users yet. I have confidence they will get there over time, however.
I have used Honeycomb. There are nice features to it, just as there are nice features to Android. But I felt like I had to "learn" Android. I have never felt that way with iOS. Although advanced features can be opaque, the navigation and interaction model are intuitive and simple. They are based on real world gestures and interactions. That makes the learning curve less severe. Android doesn't really do this. It attempts to shove desktop metaphors and all the mess that comes with it. User's don't want to interact with the file system. They don't want to have to have 3 or 4 ways to achieve the same tasks; case in point, application switching. And, just like windows, everything seems to be buried under a pile of menus.
Google hasn't figured out UI design yet. They don't know how to conceptualize an experience FIRST, and implement features later. They are talented developers, but they don't understand users yet. I have confidence they will get there over time, however.
JeffDM
Sep 16, 04:39 PM
You are right. However, you try to tell consumers "Well we are moving to 2.4Ghz chips" after you just had 2.66Ghz and 3.0Ghz chips. It isnt going to work.
If today, Dell decided to move there whole line back to 1Ghz processors, nobody would buy. Unfortunetly the Ghz myth is a strong as its ever been. Taking a step backward is not an option.
It's already happened, just not in as a melodramatic way as you suggest (back to 1GHz? geez). AMD took a small step back, Hz wise when they introduced dual core, though it still advanced their "+" processor ratings I suppose that few noticed the actual clock reduction. Intel took a major step back Hz wise between Netburst and Core 2. The 5000 and 5100 series Xeon CPUs demonstrate this, you can get a Dell precision 690 with 3.73GHz Netburst based chips or the same 690 with 3.0GHz Core2 based chips.
So I don't think that a quad core Xeon running at 2.66GHz is going to be hurt too much in comparison to a dual core 3.0GHz, it's still a much more powerful processor.
Didn't you get the memo, PowerPC is dead. WTF does that have to do with anything? Do you just have this Pavlovian response to the word "Hyperthreading"?
PPC isn't dead, it's just not in new desktops anymore. IBM is making them (or at least co-designed them) for all the next generation game consoles and a lot of huge supercomputers.
If today, Dell decided to move there whole line back to 1Ghz processors, nobody would buy. Unfortunetly the Ghz myth is a strong as its ever been. Taking a step backward is not an option.
It's already happened, just not in as a melodramatic way as you suggest (back to 1GHz? geez). AMD took a small step back, Hz wise when they introduced dual core, though it still advanced their "+" processor ratings I suppose that few noticed the actual clock reduction. Intel took a major step back Hz wise between Netburst and Core 2. The 5000 and 5100 series Xeon CPUs demonstrate this, you can get a Dell precision 690 with 3.73GHz Netburst based chips or the same 690 with 3.0GHz Core2 based chips.
So I don't think that a quad core Xeon running at 2.66GHz is going to be hurt too much in comparison to a dual core 3.0GHz, it's still a much more powerful processor.
Didn't you get the memo, PowerPC is dead. WTF does that have to do with anything? Do you just have this Pavlovian response to the word "Hyperthreading"?
PPC isn't dead, it's just not in new desktops anymore. IBM is making them (or at least co-designed them) for all the next generation game consoles and a lot of huge supercomputers.
cloudnine
Nov 28, 07:27 PM
"It would be a nice idea."
What does that mean? I have lots of nice ideas for getting money when I didn't do anything.
By this logic, shouldn't Universal also get royalties for every CD player, Cassette player, and radio sold?
Might as well cash in on the giant cash cow that is the iPod :rolleyes:
My thoughts exactly... "oh, well this ipod thing plays music and it's the best mp3 player out there... how can we get this to benefit us for absolutely no reason?"
asinine.
What does that mean? I have lots of nice ideas for getting money when I didn't do anything.
By this logic, shouldn't Universal also get royalties for every CD player, Cassette player, and radio sold?
Might as well cash in on the giant cash cow that is the iPod :rolleyes:
My thoughts exactly... "oh, well this ipod thing plays music and it's the best mp3 player out there... how can we get this to benefit us for absolutely no reason?"
asinine.
afrowq
Apr 11, 05:59 PM
Exactly. Apple has been neglecting its professional products since the iPhone and iOS release, and focusing on consumer level products. A lot of people on MacRumors are new to Mac/Apple. For those of us who have used Mac's for 10+ years, mostly for work, we have become weary of the direction the company is taking for US, not for the average Joe. FCP was a standard at the time, for less than its competitors it offered a great GUI at a reasonable price point. The hardware and software are business investments.
As for the sarcastic comment regarding someone not leaving Apple now before FCP is released, it's because leaving is a huge decision. We have lots of money, time and equipment invested in our work. It's not as simple as dropping everything you have used for many, many years and investing and training yourself for another platform.
Sorry, but I am tired of the new users brought in from iPhone's and iPods and MacBook's getting snarky with the professionals who carried Apple through tough times and rely on Apple's professional line for our work. First the dedicated ACD's are neglected and replaced with ONE 27" LED LCD panel from the 27" iMac, OS X Lion is morphing into an iOS GUI, the Xeon Server processors in the Mac Pro line that replaced the affordable PowerMac G4/5's are over priced and over powered for some of our needs, Xserve was dropped not due to less sales but less marketing and development due to Apple's focus on iDevices, less OS X development such as Resolution Independence, 64-bit implementation, TRIM support for third party Sandforce SSD's, and so on. Heck, even professional such as Annie Leibovitz has left Apple due its lack of professional level products over the past four years.
There's much more to Apple than iDevices, as great as they may be. iMac's, iPads, MacBooks - they don't replace the systems Apple has left that are necessary for our work.
*and before anyone states that Apple has made billions on iDevices and iOS, they certainly can take a small amount of that cash reserve and reinvest it into a much needed market, such as a mid-level tower that fits between the top level iMac and entry level Mac Pro for those of us who need 5+ tower's but now can't afford them since the Intel transition. Apple could easily restructure their professional focus with new project managers to give a much needed refresh of their high end niche, and they could easily make a profit from that market. They created/restructured a niche market with iDevices and made a killing, why not with their professional end products? There are thousands if not more of us who would gladly pony up and stick with Apple.
Nailed it
As for the sarcastic comment regarding someone not leaving Apple now before FCP is released, it's because leaving is a huge decision. We have lots of money, time and equipment invested in our work. It's not as simple as dropping everything you have used for many, many years and investing and training yourself for another platform.
Sorry, but I am tired of the new users brought in from iPhone's and iPods and MacBook's getting snarky with the professionals who carried Apple through tough times and rely on Apple's professional line for our work. First the dedicated ACD's are neglected and replaced with ONE 27" LED LCD panel from the 27" iMac, OS X Lion is morphing into an iOS GUI, the Xeon Server processors in the Mac Pro line that replaced the affordable PowerMac G4/5's are over priced and over powered for some of our needs, Xserve was dropped not due to less sales but less marketing and development due to Apple's focus on iDevices, less OS X development such as Resolution Independence, 64-bit implementation, TRIM support for third party Sandforce SSD's, and so on. Heck, even professional such as Annie Leibovitz has left Apple due its lack of professional level products over the past four years.
There's much more to Apple than iDevices, as great as they may be. iMac's, iPads, MacBooks - they don't replace the systems Apple has left that are necessary for our work.
*and before anyone states that Apple has made billions on iDevices and iOS, they certainly can take a small amount of that cash reserve and reinvest it into a much needed market, such as a mid-level tower that fits between the top level iMac and entry level Mac Pro for those of us who need 5+ tower's but now can't afford them since the Intel transition. Apple could easily restructure their professional focus with new project managers to give a much needed refresh of their high end niche, and they could easily make a profit from that market. They created/restructured a niche market with iDevices and made a killing, why not with their professional end products? There are thousands if not more of us who would gladly pony up and stick with Apple.
Nailed it
econgeek
Apr 12, 08:40 PM
Migrated to the new thread.
digitalbiker
Aug 25, 03:35 PM
Call it what you want but these new MacBooks are crap. Yea there is people who are enjoying theirs without a hitch but look at all the reports of problems. Not once on this forum have we had a flood of problems with a single unit. Apple dropped the ball on this one. Poorly made unit
I think you are exagerating this just a tad. The MacBook has had very few problems considering it is a generation one release. The MacBook Pro generation one and the G4 TI PB first generation were plagued with many, many more problems than the MacBook.
In my opinion Apple has done a very good job of quality control on the MacBook. This battery recall doesn't even apply to the MacBook.
I think you are exagerating this just a tad. The MacBook has had very few problems considering it is a generation one release. The MacBook Pro generation one and the G4 TI PB first generation were plagued with many, many more problems than the MacBook.
In my opinion Apple has done a very good job of quality control on the MacBook. This battery recall doesn't even apply to the MacBook.
JAT
Apr 19, 11:54 PM
For that matter, people say that Apple ripped off their bookshelf from Delicious Library. Which itself took it from who knows where.
Mediaman (http://www.imediaman.com/) for Windows, perhaps. The companies appear to have started within a couple months of each other, one writing on Mac, one on Win. Interestingly, neither has appeared to try going to the other OS with their virtually identical products. Suspicious?
I always wondered which actually came first.
Mediaman (http://www.imediaman.com/) for Windows, perhaps. The companies appear to have started within a couple months of each other, one writing on Mac, one on Win. Interestingly, neither has appeared to try going to the other OS with their virtually identical products. Suspicious?
I always wondered which actually came first.
S i
Sep 19, 09:26 AM
AMEN!!!! This whole thread has the tone of a spoiled 13 year old's "I want" tirade. All the benchmarks show little difference between Merom and what you can buy today...and the 64 bit argument is really moot for most users because....(ready for it)....it's a laptop! Very few will have more than 2GB RAM on it anyway, and addressing larger RAM partitions is the #1 64 bit advantage.
You can get a real speed boost just by compiling to 64-bit (naturally this depends on the source). The 64-bit benefit will increase over time on the Mac platform. On 64-bit Gentoo I had the chance to compare 32-bit & 64-bit binaries on exactly the same PC, & disagree entirely with your statement. Programs that can take advantage of 64-bit architecture, & are subsequently compiled for it, are definitely something to be desired.
Add grudging 32-bit hanger-ons to the spoiled 13 year olds on here.
You can get a real speed boost just by compiling to 64-bit (naturally this depends on the source). The 64-bit benefit will increase over time on the Mac platform. On 64-bit Gentoo I had the chance to compare 32-bit & 64-bit binaries on exactly the same PC, & disagree entirely with your statement. Programs that can take advantage of 64-bit architecture, & are subsequently compiled for it, are definitely something to be desired.
Add grudging 32-bit hanger-ons to the spoiled 13 year olds on here.
rezenclowd3
Nov 24, 09:36 PM
Oh I forgot. Still no qualifying/race weekends. LAME.
Why the F%^$ don't race games include the race weekend experience, especially if it's a sim? F1 2010 at least does, but that game, even post-patch is horrendous.
From racing RC cars, and AutoXing, qualifying/practice is so much of the experience. I hate always starting halfway or last in the field like I am forced to be a noob. It seems instead they force one to use a better car than the rest of the field to win, or severely inhibit the AIs ability.
Why the F%^$ don't race games include the race weekend experience, especially if it's a sim? F1 2010 at least does, but that game, even post-patch is horrendous.
From racing RC cars, and AutoXing, qualifying/practice is so much of the experience. I hate always starting halfway or last in the field like I am forced to be a noob. It seems instead they force one to use a better car than the rest of the field to win, or severely inhibit the AIs ability.
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 9, 04:11 PM
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
I love racing my VW Bus. I also love racing the Vauxhall Tigra, which has about 96hp iirc. If all you want to do it buy an F1 and drive as quickly as possible dont even bother looking in GT5's direction. I get bored when i get to the faster races because you get stuck with the same dull cars every game. Woohoo, lets all buy a 458 Italia, F1, or Murcielago... :rolleyes:
I like the early races where i can tune up a Cappucino and get at most 200hp out of it.
GT5 is a game for people who love cars. Not people who only love fast cars. People who love all cars.
I'm sure you'd be happy if everyone started with a Zonda in their garage, but for people who like to drive something fresh and fun the exhaustive list in GT5 is perfect.
I love racing my VW Bus. I also love racing the Vauxhall Tigra, which has about 96hp iirc. If all you want to do it buy an F1 and drive as quickly as possible dont even bother looking in GT5's direction. I get bored when i get to the faster races because you get stuck with the same dull cars every game. Woohoo, lets all buy a 458 Italia, F1, or Murcielago... :rolleyes:
I like the early races where i can tune up a Cappucino and get at most 200hp out of it.
GT5 is a game for people who love cars. Not people who only love fast cars. People who love all cars.
I'm sure you'd be happy if everyone started with a Zonda in their garage, but for people who like to drive something fresh and fun the exhaustive list in GT5 is perfect.
handsome pete
Apr 5, 08:59 PM
4K is coming sooner than later. Youtube has 4K media, of course it looks bad because of the YT compression penalty.
4K displays are coming too, both computer monitors and home theater.
I don't see it becoming commonplace anytime soon. 4K acquisition is still reserved for big budget Hollywood productions. Of course Red can do it but that still isn't exactly cheap and most either don't shoot it, or don't finish in 4K.
I'm not saying it won't happen, but it's going to be a while, especially on the consumer front. Unless they decide to force it down our throats like the 3D crap.
4K displays are coming too, both computer monitors and home theater.
I don't see it becoming commonplace anytime soon. 4K acquisition is still reserved for big budget Hollywood productions. Of course Red can do it but that still isn't exactly cheap and most either don't shoot it, or don't finish in 4K.
I'm not saying it won't happen, but it's going to be a while, especially on the consumer front. Unless they decide to force it down our throats like the 3D crap.
mcgillmaine
Jun 23, 01:48 PM
Now the two stores that were getting phones are saying they haven't got any in yet. so i'm going to pass on RS. Maybe i'll just trade my old phone for a case or something else.
Silentwave
Aug 17, 11:05 AM
pc world, september issue, mentioned amd's plan for a quad core processor in 2007 and if that happens, some pc box will be faster than our best xeon powered machines...that is, he he, unless we get that quad core K8L amd with their 4x4 motherboard architecture which would enable a desktop to run two quads for a total of 8 amd cores (but the price of such a machine will debut at a very high price and probably won't directly compete with the mac pro)
Um....that's why intel has quad core chips coming out...starting in *2006*
On the Xeon side, Clovertown, on the consumer side, kentsfield. Sometime in the first half of 2007 I believe we'll see Tigerton, which will be an even more formidable quad core xeon, capable of more than 2 processor configurations- so if apple gets a 3 socket logic board, or a 4 socket one, we could have 12 or 16 cores.
Um....that's why intel has quad core chips coming out...starting in *2006*
On the Xeon side, Clovertown, on the consumer side, kentsfield. Sometime in the first half of 2007 I believe we'll see Tigerton, which will be an even more formidable quad core xeon, capable of more than 2 processor configurations- so if apple gets a 3 socket logic board, or a 4 socket one, we could have 12 or 16 cores.
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 03:36 PM
You know as well as I do that has to do with the signal, not whether it is Code division or time division. If you claim differently, show me reputable references.
Uh, actually tower handoff has relatively little to do with signal... it's two totally different things.
Want a reference? Is the IEEE reputable enough for you?
http://www.ieee.or.com/Archive/diversity_in_3g/diversity_in_3g.pdf
Page 6: Why CDMA? Allows soft handoffs.
Enuff said.
Care to back up any of your assumptions with reputable references?
Uh, actually tower handoff has relatively little to do with signal... it's two totally different things.
Want a reference? Is the IEEE reputable enough for you?
http://www.ieee.or.com/Archive/diversity_in_3g/diversity_in_3g.pdf
Page 6: Why CDMA? Allows soft handoffs.
Enuff said.
Care to back up any of your assumptions with reputable references?
DCJ001
Mar 26, 07:57 PM
im using snow leopard, will all my documents and apps gone if i upgrade to lion ?
PowerPC (Rosetta) emulation is no longer offered. That means if you have any PowerPC applications they won't be able to run in Mac OS X Lion. You can determine if you are still running PowerPC applications by going into Applications -> Utilities -> System Profiler -> Applications and viewing "By Kind". This will show you which applications you have that are running under PowerPC. Rosetta had already become an optional install in Snow Leopard, and it appears Apple will be removing support for it entirely in Lion.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1104601
PowerPC (Rosetta) emulation is no longer offered. That means if you have any PowerPC applications they won't be able to run in Mac OS X Lion. You can determine if you are still running PowerPC applications by going into Applications -> Utilities -> System Profiler -> Applications and viewing "By Kind". This will show you which applications you have that are running under PowerPC. Rosetta had already become an optional install in Snow Leopard, and it appears Apple will be removing support for it entirely in Lion.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1104601
zac4mac
Aug 11, 02:14 PM
I'm on my 3rd cell phone now. First was a panasonic brick and was CDMA. It totally sucked. Switched to GSM 2 years ago but initially Cingular sent the wrong phone - an LG flip. Reception was as bad as the CDMA but roaming was much better. After 3 weeks, I got the phone I ordered, a t637 and I love it. I have NO desire to go back to CDMA and I won't lose the tight BT link I have to my Macs with the t637, but it's getting old and due replacement.
I'm watching and waiting...
Z
I'm watching and waiting...
Z
twoodcc
Jul 20, 08:30 AM
this can be only good news, as long as Apple keeps up with the pc world and put these processors in their computers when they are released. i sure hope that they do
