kev0476
Jul 20, 09:28 AM
New MacPro rev2.
8 cores = 24Ghz
(with Free fire extinguisher and ear plugs) :p
you need to do your math better, extra core = 1.5x - 1.8x speed increase. but still the same power usage as a normal core!
8 cores = 24Ghz
(with Free fire extinguisher and ear plugs) :p
you need to do your math better, extra core = 1.5x - 1.8x speed increase. but still the same power usage as a normal core!
manu chao
Apr 27, 08:47 AM
But if that happens, they already know everything there is to know about you anyway and have no need to check your Wi-Fi database. They've got your Address Book info, your bank site links and cookies, your email, your personal letters, etc.
The point is that I save on my computer what I consider the computer to be safe enough for, which includes, eg, my e-mails. I simply would like to be given the choice to decide whether I want to save certain things on my computer or not. With that database, Apple did not give me the choice because it did not inform me about this database (if it had told me, I might have run a cron job to delete it, excluded it from my TM backups, encrypted my iPhone backups, etc.).
The point is that I save on my computer what I consider the computer to be safe enough for, which includes, eg, my e-mails. I simply would like to be given the choice to decide whether I want to save certain things on my computer or not. With that database, Apple did not give me the choice because it did not inform me about this database (if it had told me, I might have run a cron job to delete it, excluded it from my TM backups, encrypted my iPhone backups, etc.).
hexor
Mar 26, 08:03 AM
There is no way this is a GM. The "reporter" is obviously confused. If it was a GM version that means they would be sending it off for duplication soon. Since WWDC is months away this makes no sense.
Deefuzz
Nov 17, 09:00 AM
a rather dissapointing car list .. what gives with not a single newer model from VW than 2005 ? hardly any new alfas, no audi a1, a5, a7 ? no fiat 500 abarth ?
in general having old models instead of new ones at european car makers ? apart of lambo and ferrari few classic cars from european car makers added ?
so they neither added old cars and hardly any new european cars but instead mostly kept the car models from 1998-2004 period ... a big dissapointment
Actually I have to agree with this. There are somewhere around 1000 cars on the list, and some of the choices are confusing. No V series Cadillacs (only 1 Cadillac total actually) yet there are a crap ton of Nissan Skylines.
Hopefully they will fill in some of the roster with DLC, but then there's the issue of pumping more money into a game for content that should have been included from the start.
I still have it preordered and very much look forward to it, but the car list is a little confusing and disappointing.
in general having old models instead of new ones at european car makers ? apart of lambo and ferrari few classic cars from european car makers added ?
so they neither added old cars and hardly any new european cars but instead mostly kept the car models from 1998-2004 period ... a big dissapointment
Actually I have to agree with this. There are somewhere around 1000 cars on the list, and some of the choices are confusing. No V series Cadillacs (only 1 Cadillac total actually) yet there are a crap ton of Nissan Skylines.
Hopefully they will fill in some of the roster with DLC, but then there's the issue of pumping more money into a game for content that should have been included from the start.
I still have it preordered and very much look forward to it, but the car list is a little confusing and disappointing.
bibbz
Jun 8, 10:25 PM
How would I be eligible for the early upgrade? The ATT wireless site tells me.. .
iPhone Upgrade
You can take advantage of our no commitment pricing at a participating retail sales location. You may qualify for a full discount on a standard iPhone upgrade on 01/16/2011
Based off of that, I would think I am NOT eligible for early upgrade pricing..
I'm not sure how it looks on ATT's website. when we log into att and check eligibility it will say..
No, customer is not eligible for an upgrade. Yes customer is eligible for an early iPhone upgrade.
Every account we log into says that if they are not eligible for a full upgrade. If they are eligible for a full upgrade, then it says...
Yes, customer is eligible for an upgrade.
Literally, if i upgrade you in my store right now bc you are eligible, log out, and log back in, it will say whats in the 1st quote.
Check in your local store tomorrow, or shoot me a pm with your cell and your billing zip code and i can tell you... If you're not comfortable with that i understand, check your local store and when they check it, ask them specifically about the "Early iPhone upgrade"
iPhone Upgrade
You can take advantage of our no commitment pricing at a participating retail sales location. You may qualify for a full discount on a standard iPhone upgrade on 01/16/2011
Based off of that, I would think I am NOT eligible for early upgrade pricing..
I'm not sure how it looks on ATT's website. when we log into att and check eligibility it will say..
No, customer is not eligible for an upgrade. Yes customer is eligible for an early iPhone upgrade.
Every account we log into says that if they are not eligible for a full upgrade. If they are eligible for a full upgrade, then it says...
Yes, customer is eligible for an upgrade.
Literally, if i upgrade you in my store right now bc you are eligible, log out, and log back in, it will say whats in the 1st quote.
Check in your local store tomorrow, or shoot me a pm with your cell and your billing zip code and i can tell you... If you're not comfortable with that i understand, check your local store and when they check it, ask them specifically about the "Early iPhone upgrade"
rdowns
Mar 22, 01:50 PM
Where are our strict constitutionalist Tea Party Republicans? They haven't had anything to say about this. ****ing hypocrites.
rtdunham
Apr 27, 09:49 AM
I'm old-fashined I guess because I have no interest in having a smartphone in the first place. I just have a standard flip-phone. By owning a smartphone, you are always going to be faced with privacy issues...
Did you know dumb phones record every call you make? That they record who you call, and how long you talk to them? That when landlines are involved, nubmers are recorded that pinpoint the location? That your phone transmits that information to your phone company? Look at your next phone bill. Your standard flip phone even records who calls YOU and tells THAT to your phone company, too. AND if you lose your phone bill--as is the case if you lose your phone--all that data's available, in unencrypted form, to anyone and everyone!
My take: Yeah, the data should've been encrypted, and prudence would have had it deleted after a short time. They're fixing that now. But it serves a purpose we all value, facilitating calling and optimizing location services when we want them. It's a glitch, nothing more, exaggerated by media attention (and i'm part of the media, so I'm not unfairly finger-pointing) just as happened with antenna-gate and the fuss over Toyotas accelerating out of control (where almost always the conclusion is someone put their foot on the accelerator instead of the brake, by mistake). Ten years from now someone will write an entertaining book about the gap between public hysteria and reality on these issues and many others (birtherism, anyone? or if your political views swing in a different way, government spending way beyond its means?)
I'm not saying the location database is operator error. Clearly not. I'm just trying to keep it in perspective. (It's not time-stamped? It's accurate sometimes only to 50 or 81 miles, as in cases reported in this thread? My phone, using the data that's recorded, consistently puts me five miles from my home, in a different county, across a river, four or five cities away, due to some oddity of cell tower location).
Look, your credit cards not only keep track of where you've been, but how much you spent there, and when, with precise geographic accuracy. Sometimes they even tell what you've bought. Just look at your next bill. Did you know your bank keeps track of every check you write, and to whom, and sends that information to you unencrypted via the mail? Did you know...
I think we should keep this situation in perspective. Too many people here see the privacy sky falling on them, when they're really swimming in it. (Did you know the device you're using to read this doesn't protect you from being victimized by horrible unencrypted metaphors...?)
Did you know dumb phones record every call you make? That they record who you call, and how long you talk to them? That when landlines are involved, nubmers are recorded that pinpoint the location? That your phone transmits that information to your phone company? Look at your next phone bill. Your standard flip phone even records who calls YOU and tells THAT to your phone company, too. AND if you lose your phone bill--as is the case if you lose your phone--all that data's available, in unencrypted form, to anyone and everyone!
My take: Yeah, the data should've been encrypted, and prudence would have had it deleted after a short time. They're fixing that now. But it serves a purpose we all value, facilitating calling and optimizing location services when we want them. It's a glitch, nothing more, exaggerated by media attention (and i'm part of the media, so I'm not unfairly finger-pointing) just as happened with antenna-gate and the fuss over Toyotas accelerating out of control (where almost always the conclusion is someone put their foot on the accelerator instead of the brake, by mistake). Ten years from now someone will write an entertaining book about the gap between public hysteria and reality on these issues and many others (birtherism, anyone? or if your political views swing in a different way, government spending way beyond its means?)
I'm not saying the location database is operator error. Clearly not. I'm just trying to keep it in perspective. (It's not time-stamped? It's accurate sometimes only to 50 or 81 miles, as in cases reported in this thread? My phone, using the data that's recorded, consistently puts me five miles from my home, in a different county, across a river, four or five cities away, due to some oddity of cell tower location).
Look, your credit cards not only keep track of where you've been, but how much you spent there, and when, with precise geographic accuracy. Sometimes they even tell what you've bought. Just look at your next bill. Did you know your bank keeps track of every check you write, and to whom, and sends that information to you unencrypted via the mail? Did you know...
I think we should keep this situation in perspective. Too many people here see the privacy sky falling on them, when they're really swimming in it. (Did you know the device you're using to read this doesn't protect you from being victimized by horrible unencrypted metaphors...?)
KnightWRX
Apr 6, 11:01 AM
So are the current MacBook airs using a dedicated gpu? Or is it integrated? I'm confused. :-)
They use an IGP (Integrated Graphics Processor) manufactured by nVidia and incorporated to the "chipset" (south bridge) that is the 320m.
SB ships an IGP integrated on the CPU die itself, manufactured by Intel.
The nVidia solution is better for graphics performance.
They use an IGP (Integrated Graphics Processor) manufactured by nVidia and incorporated to the "chipset" (south bridge) that is the 320m.
SB ships an IGP integrated on the CPU die itself, manufactured by Intel.
The nVidia solution is better for graphics performance.
SiliconAddict
Aug 6, 02:54 PM
I have tried the vista Beta, and ran in via BootCamp, so no different hardware. Tiger is miles ahead of vista.
Put simply: Tiger Works.... Vista Crashes and takes 2 years longer than tiger to do the same task.
I don't care how it looks, i don't care about see-through windows. I want something that works. Tiger gives me that.... and i hope leopard makes it even better. Tiger is ahead of the competition, hopefully leopard will be further forward, beating Vista to where it should be... In a beige, boring box:D
Vista is also 6 months out, prob more. This is no different then when Apple released 10.0. There WAS a reason 10.1 was free to 10.0 users. Microsoft will get this cleaned up over the 18+ months it takes Apple to come out with 10.6. Leopard has to go the distance and I two have been using Vista inhouse since early Alpha's for internal app testing. Its come a long way. It still has a long way to go still but the core IS there. MS simply needs to bug fix the heck out of it. Which will happen within 2-4 months of release with SP1 and then SP2 another 6 months after that.
Mac OS X Leopard
Introducing Vista 2.0
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=207241438&size=l
:D
B
Is that real? PLEASE tell me that is real! :D Priceless.
Put simply: Tiger Works.... Vista Crashes and takes 2 years longer than tiger to do the same task.
I don't care how it looks, i don't care about see-through windows. I want something that works. Tiger gives me that.... and i hope leopard makes it even better. Tiger is ahead of the competition, hopefully leopard will be further forward, beating Vista to where it should be... In a beige, boring box:D
Vista is also 6 months out, prob more. This is no different then when Apple released 10.0. There WAS a reason 10.1 was free to 10.0 users. Microsoft will get this cleaned up over the 18+ months it takes Apple to come out with 10.6. Leopard has to go the distance and I two have been using Vista inhouse since early Alpha's for internal app testing. Its come a long way. It still has a long way to go still but the core IS there. MS simply needs to bug fix the heck out of it. Which will happen within 2-4 months of release with SP1 and then SP2 another 6 months after that.
Mac OS X Leopard
Introducing Vista 2.0
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=207241438&size=l
:D
B
Is that real? PLEASE tell me that is real! :D Priceless.
Multimedia
Jul 20, 08:05 PM
I'm betting on Mac Pro OctaCore 2 :D
Should that "a" be an "o" ?
Should that "a" be an "o" ?
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 13, 11:05 AM
and this got negative votes because...??????????
All the people that just coughed up $3k for a quad core MacPro.
All the people that just coughed up $3k for a quad core MacPro.
jeanlain
Apr 12, 08:21 AM
I don't use batch monitor so I'm not sure where to look. It doesn't show much more than compressor, merely the name of the job and a progress bar. I see that the little inspector window should show the "segments" (I'm not sure they call it that in Englsh), but I don't see any segments in the test encoding I just did. Plus, disabling task segmentation (fragmentation?) in the encoder settings doesn't change the CPU load. Maybe a source file isn't split when QMaster isn't configured
Anyway, the encoding uses 4 cores since CPU usages exceeds 300%. I'm positive it uses all of my cores. As a comparison, by Mac Pro is more than twice faster than my friend's iMac, which has 2 core but roughly similar CPU speed (GHz).
Anyway, the encoding uses 4 cores since CPU usages exceeds 300%. I'm positive it uses all of my cores. As a comparison, by Mac Pro is more than twice faster than my friend's iMac, which has 2 core but roughly similar CPU speed (GHz).
mweingar
Apr 6, 02:43 PM
I purchased a Xoom over the weekend it's a great device, a little heavy, but very awesome for its first pass. I used to own an iPad 1, gave it away, didn't want an iPad 2. Why do I need two devices of the same OS where the UI was designed for the iPhone (smaller device) to begin with? I love the versatility of honeycomb, widgets are phenomenal on a large tablet screen. Everything is great about the interface so far, although there are a few things here and there which make no sense, but I'm sure they'll fix that. I ran into some bugs, called Moto support, they troubleshooted with me, fixed it and were really cool about it. As far as hardware, the materials are great, but definitely Motorola needs to learn a thing or two about button placement. They put the sleep/wakeup button on the back of the device. I used to like to hit the home button on the iPad to wake it up and do stuff (while I was having a bowl of cereal for example), with the Xoom I can't do that, I HAVE to pick up the device. Another interface/hardware awkwardness are the volume buttons and I cannot find a way to change volume within the device itself, unless I press the volume hardware buttons a window will popup.
Other than that, I can live with all this, and the device is extremely awesome and a fresh feeling of a new UI the way it should be done for a tablet.
You list ONE issue with the iPad, that it looks too much like the iPhone, and then go on to a laundry list of issues on the Xoom that culminates in a tech support call and THAT is your preferred device?
Rock on winner. I have a bridge I want to sell you.
Other than that, I can live with all this, and the device is extremely awesome and a fresh feeling of a new UI the way it should be done for a tablet.
You list ONE issue with the iPad, that it looks too much like the iPhone, and then go on to a laundry list of issues on the Xoom that culminates in a tech support call and THAT is your preferred device?
Rock on winner. I have a bridge I want to sell you.
Multimedia
Jul 24, 05:54 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.
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.
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.Not really. Yorkfield is the 8 core follow on to Kentsfield in the Conroe class motherboard. Should be shipping by next Spring.Next Spring??? Can you please point me to the source of that information.
I don't believe Intel can go to 8 core chip before going to a true 4 core instead of 2 dual cores on the MCM. That may have to wait till the process moves to 45nm and they have the Common System Interface worked out i.e. towards the end of 2007. This is all an educated guess on my part ... nothing concrete.It's in the roadmap listed to follow Kentsfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_Microarchitecture).
"Yorkfield, eight-core MCM, 45 nm, 12 MiB L2, successor to Kentsfield"
Since Kentsfield is due Fall I IMAGINED Yorkfield would be ready to roll by Spring 2007. Maybe later? OK maybe later. I have no idea. Just feeling optimistic about Intel's accelerated rollout luck lately.
Well at the very least we will have pairs of Tigertons providing 8 cores by Spring 2007 as a stop-gap on a Woodcrest motherboard. Won't we?
My point wasn't so much exactly when Yorkfield will arrive as much as it was that Kentsfield is not THE END of increasingly more cores on the Conroe front as you had stated as fact.
Anyone else having confusion with all these -field, -town and -ton processor name suffixes? Aparently even the moderators here are. They have mispelled Clovertown in the original news story and post as well as on this forum's web page titles.
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.
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.
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.Not really. Yorkfield is the 8 core follow on to Kentsfield in the Conroe class motherboard. Should be shipping by next Spring.Next Spring??? Can you please point me to the source of that information.
I don't believe Intel can go to 8 core chip before going to a true 4 core instead of 2 dual cores on the MCM. That may have to wait till the process moves to 45nm and they have the Common System Interface worked out i.e. towards the end of 2007. This is all an educated guess on my part ... nothing concrete.It's in the roadmap listed to follow Kentsfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_Microarchitecture).
"Yorkfield, eight-core MCM, 45 nm, 12 MiB L2, successor to Kentsfield"
Since Kentsfield is due Fall I IMAGINED Yorkfield would be ready to roll by Spring 2007. Maybe later? OK maybe later. I have no idea. Just feeling optimistic about Intel's accelerated rollout luck lately.
Well at the very least we will have pairs of Tigertons providing 8 cores by Spring 2007 as a stop-gap on a Woodcrest motherboard. Won't we?
My point wasn't so much exactly when Yorkfield will arrive as much as it was that Kentsfield is not THE END of increasingly more cores on the Conroe front as you had stated as fact.
Anyone else having confusion with all these -field, -town and -ton processor name suffixes? Aparently even the moderators here are. They have mispelled Clovertown in the original news story and post as well as on this forum's web page titles.
daneoni
Aug 26, 09:26 AM
Get with what program? I went to the support site on the day the recall was announced, checked to see if my serial number was in the range, it wasn't, and I went on with my life. Just to be safe, I even checked back a couple days later, and the ranges were still the same as the first time I checked.
I had to do the same thing wheh I was checking out our Dell laptops at the office. It's really not that difficult a concept. I think some people just like to have something to complain about.
Some sites were reporting wrong ranges, at the end of the day its which site alerts you first, in my case it was MR and they didnt get it right (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060824134647.shtml) initially which is.......confusing
I had to do the same thing wheh I was checking out our Dell laptops at the office. It's really not that difficult a concept. I think some people just like to have something to complain about.
Some sites were reporting wrong ranges, at the end of the day its which site alerts you first, in my case it was MR and they didnt get it right (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060824134647.shtml) initially which is.......confusing
SteveRichardson
Jul 27, 11:04 AM
Me too. I'm just going to hang onto my aging iBook G4 until they come out. I really would kick myself if I bought a MacBook Pro now so close to them being updated. I'm just hoping I can order soon, and then they will arrive at the end of August... just in time for school. *crosses fingers*
Yeah same same. Haha I've had my iBook G4 for like 2 1/2 years now (can it be that long already?).
tiiimeee for an upgrade.
I wonder if they can ship it to my dorm in one piece if needed (as in if I need to wait that long before they become available....:( )
Yeah same same. Haha I've had my iBook G4 for like 2 1/2 years now (can it be that long already?).
tiiimeee for an upgrade.
I wonder if they can ship it to my dorm in one piece if needed (as in if I need to wait that long before they become available....:( )
SuperCachetes
Mar 23, 04:23 PM
"Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq? If not, is it your suggestion that America should be involved in every humanitarian crisis with brutal dictators worldwide, or at least those comparable to Libya? If so, why aren't we in North Korea? Why aren't we in any number of African nations?
I think this is a fair point, and it really doesn't matter if it's the United States making the calls, or the United Nations. We are essentially playing "God" with the other nations of the world. My complaint on the first page revolved around the lack of a quantifiable threshold for intervention. We inadvertently play favorites, and the world has every right to wonder about the motivation any time the USA takes action against a sovereign state. We should either stay out of ALL interference, or else put on the damn star-spangled cape and superhero tights and get to business already. Wherever evil is, we must go and fight it! :rolleyes:
Why you keep on referring to Iraq when the scale of action in scope of resources and time isn't remotely on the size of the Iraq invasion, is a complete mystery. If you're attempting to make this Obama's 'Iraq' folly, then you will fail. This will be off the front pages of US papers in terms of US engagement within a week or two.
Quite right. So far the whole Libya affair has a lot more in common with Desert Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)) than Iraq...
I think this is a fair point, and it really doesn't matter if it's the United States making the calls, or the United Nations. We are essentially playing "God" with the other nations of the world. My complaint on the first page revolved around the lack of a quantifiable threshold for intervention. We inadvertently play favorites, and the world has every right to wonder about the motivation any time the USA takes action against a sovereign state. We should either stay out of ALL interference, or else put on the damn star-spangled cape and superhero tights and get to business already. Wherever evil is, we must go and fight it! :rolleyes:
Why you keep on referring to Iraq when the scale of action in scope of resources and time isn't remotely on the size of the Iraq invasion, is a complete mystery. If you're attempting to make this Obama's 'Iraq' folly, then you will fail. This will be off the front pages of US papers in terms of US engagement within a week or two.
Quite right. So far the whole Libya affair has a lot more in common with Desert Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)) than Iraq...
Burnsey
Mar 20, 11:13 PM
Well, you see, it is not about the one-man-one-vote thing. That works just fine. You just have to make sure you keep the wrong men from voting.
The problem is your not voting for a leader, you're just voting for the new mouthpiece.
The problem is your not voting for a leader, you're just voting for the new mouthpiece.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 07:31 PM
Sticking your neck out there, I see. :)
I've always been a risk-taker. ;)
Sounds dangerously like, "the ends justify the means."
From a western perspective, there is legitimate concern for libyan civilians engaged in a popular uprising on the one hand, and both the threat to oil supplies and Gaddafi's enmity towards the international community on the other. Nobody wants to see a long, destructive civil war. Libya's own citizens rose in revolt, in sufficient numbers to wrest huge portions of the country from Gaddafi's control. Gaddafi has himself stated that he will hunt down and kill any person who stands against his regime.
Having grave reservations about intervention is all fine and well, but one has to be realistic - under what circumstances is non-intervention a good option here? Indeed, you could say "the ends justify the means" about that too - the oil keeps flowing, no foreign soldiers are killed and no money spent on military intervention. It also allows you the luxury of occupying the moral high ground, condemning human rights violations without taking sides or lifting a finger to aid anyone. It is obvious the UN has taken sides here, no doubt about it. Do you disagree with that decision?
No he hasn't, the stage management has been quite subtle, actually, for once.
I don't think Obama was "dragged" into this at all, the US has gotten willingly involved - but to what extent do you think it was stage-managed?
I've always been a risk-taker. ;)
Sounds dangerously like, "the ends justify the means."
From a western perspective, there is legitimate concern for libyan civilians engaged in a popular uprising on the one hand, and both the threat to oil supplies and Gaddafi's enmity towards the international community on the other. Nobody wants to see a long, destructive civil war. Libya's own citizens rose in revolt, in sufficient numbers to wrest huge portions of the country from Gaddafi's control. Gaddafi has himself stated that he will hunt down and kill any person who stands against his regime.
Having grave reservations about intervention is all fine and well, but one has to be realistic - under what circumstances is non-intervention a good option here? Indeed, you could say "the ends justify the means" about that too - the oil keeps flowing, no foreign soldiers are killed and no money spent on military intervention. It also allows you the luxury of occupying the moral high ground, condemning human rights violations without taking sides or lifting a finger to aid anyone. It is obvious the UN has taken sides here, no doubt about it. Do you disagree with that decision?
No he hasn't, the stage management has been quite subtle, actually, for once.
I don't think Obama was "dragged" into this at all, the US has gotten willingly involved - but to what extent do you think it was stage-managed?
EagerDragon
Aug 26, 10:14 AM
I am sure the customer support is not good in non-US.
Unfortunately Apple is not maintainly a high quality of customer support service throughout the world. It seems Apple is neglecting the areas which is growing fast. This will certainly hinder the growth of Mac OS market share.
HEY MACRUMORS personnel, how about creating a poll that ask people that are unhappy with Apple support their region of the world and then share that with Apple and the media. Maybe we can get some fire under their butts and get these people some well deserved help and good service. Please Help!!!!
Most of these people pay more for their MAC thatn we in the US do, I would think they should get at least the same level of quality in service and in hardware. They are also part of our MAC family.
Unfortunately Apple is not maintainly a high quality of customer support service throughout the world. It seems Apple is neglecting the areas which is growing fast. This will certainly hinder the growth of Mac OS market share.
HEY MACRUMORS personnel, how about creating a poll that ask people that are unhappy with Apple support their region of the world and then share that with Apple and the media. Maybe we can get some fire under their butts and get these people some well deserved help and good service. Please Help!!!!
Most of these people pay more for their MAC thatn we in the US do, I would think they should get at least the same level of quality in service and in hardware. They are also part of our MAC family.
skunk
Mar 22, 06:24 PM
As others have pointed out, killing a peaceful protester (or non-involved innocent civilian for that matter) is never justified....nor is raiding hospitals, demolishing mosques, cutting off water, electricity and gas to a besieged city.
Sorry, who were we talking about?
Weird flashback moment there....
Sorry, who were we talking about?
Weird flashback moment there....
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 12:13 PM
Funny also that we heard a DAMN THING from the media regarding the fact that ONLY CONGRESS can declare war.
What was your beloved Reagan up to in Grenada then? :rolleyes:
What was your beloved Reagan up to in Grenada then? :rolleyes:
LagunaSol
Apr 27, 08:24 AM
Its not about being a criminal or paranoid. This data is for the sole purpose of marketers to sell us crap.
Well, I'm tired of seeing ads everywhere I turn. You can't go to the bathroom now without seeing a ad shoved in your face and its becoming tiresome.
Perhaps we can interest you in a *free mobile OS? Android. By Google.
*funded by advertising
Well, I'm tired of seeing ads everywhere I turn. You can't go to the bathroom now without seeing a ad shoved in your face and its becoming tiresome.
Perhaps we can interest you in a *free mobile OS? Android. By Google.
*funded by advertising
No comments:
Post a Comment