ArchaicRevival
Apr 6, 02:10 PM
Epic. Fail.
~Shard~
Jul 14, 02:45 PM
Also, think about what apple would be doing with such a machine - selling you a low cost, low margin mac that you could nonetheless upgrade with 3rd party components for years. Meaning that apple doesn't make a lot off you up front and doesn't get you coming back again for 5-ish years. Great for you, not so great for them. Whereas if they sell you a mac pro, they make a killing up front, so it's ok if you keep it for years, and if they sell you anything else you'll be back a lot sooner.
Yep - and that's the reality of it. It isn't just about the consumer, it's about profit margins, product life cycles, sales, etc. Apple wants to please their customers of course, however at the end of the day, business is business. :cool:
Yep - and that's the reality of it. It isn't just about the consumer, it's about profit margins, product life cycles, sales, etc. Apple wants to please their customers of course, however at the end of the day, business is business. :cool:
R94N
Aug 18, 05:23 AM
A blue PS3 is a nice idea.
bcharna
Aug 5, 10:17 PM
EVERYONE is missing something that MUST be updated A.S.A.P.!
AirPort Base Stations!
Express and especially the Extreme. The Extreme is YEARS old!!
:eek: :eek:
AirPort Base Stations!
Express and especially the Extreme. The Extreme is YEARS old!!
:eek: :eek:
Westside guy
Aug 7, 03:50 PM
Hey nice to see osx will have system restore =D
Time machine isn't even similar to MS's System Restore. Time Machine is basically like having CVS or Subversion underneath the file system. It rocks. I don't believe there's ever been anything like it on a client-type computer (a similar feature was present in the server OS VMS, I believe).
You might want to do some reading about CVS and Subversion.
Edit: Now that I think about it, it wouldn't be surprising to find that CVS/Subversion code is the foundation for Time Machine.
Time machine isn't even similar to MS's System Restore. Time Machine is basically like having CVS or Subversion underneath the file system. It rocks. I don't believe there's ever been anything like it on a client-type computer (a similar feature was present in the server OS VMS, I believe).
You might want to do some reading about CVS and Subversion.
Edit: Now that I think about it, it wouldn't be surprising to find that CVS/Subversion code is the foundation for Time Machine.
Yebubbleman
Apr 6, 03:35 PM
Disagree, the Air is a niche product, and there is a noticeable difference in weight. 2KG 13" Pro is exactly 50% heavier than 1.3KG Air, and if you lug the laptop around all day long such weight difference is noticeable. It might be added that most Air users are never gonna need the extra computing power of the MBP. If your work requires a MBP you're never going to get an Air anyway.
If you don't need the power of a MacBook Pro, then a white MacBook is the best bang for the buck. Period. The only two reasons why an Air would be desirable over a white MacBook are superficial aesthetic preferences (please people, these are computers, not fashion accessories) and weight, which brings me to...
I am going even further - I like the featherweight of the 11" and the fact that after the update it is going to be a very serious machine is not to be neglected.
After the update, it'll still be the slowest Mac in the line-up. Serious machine? Perhaps compared to a Core 2 Duo machine, but then again, at that point, they'll all have Sandy Bridge and will thusly all be serious compared to the Core 2 Duo Macs in every respect (save for the IGP in tow, of course). Featherweight? Sure, but at that point, do I really want to be editing my Microsoft Word documents or Photoshop files on a computer with an 11.6" screen? And for the same cost as a full featured Mac laptop (white MacBook)? No thanks.
Last but not least, those 2 pounds you're talking about can be crucial when deciding what to take in your hand luggage when traveling by plane. I've been up to such a decision when I had to take my 2.8kg PC laptop. That's where I guess the name of the computer comes from - Macbook Air, designed for use on an Airplane.
A 13" MacBook Pro wouldn't make travel THAT much harder. Seriously. I've traveled with a white MacBook for quite a while, and honestly, an Air would make the bag lighter, but not to the point where I'd take it over a white MacBook or a 13" MacBook Pro. Were I doing constant walking with the thing, maybe. As it stands I don't have that kind of mobile computing lifestyle, nor do I know many people that do.
The integrated Intel HD 3000 seems to be about equal to the integrated GeForce 320M when Barefeets did their tests on vidoe games.
On Portal, the HD3000 was 68FPS and the 320M was 65FPS.
On X-Plane, the HD3000 was 38FPS and the 320M was 43FPS.
Certainly worth moving to SB processors.
http://www.barefeats.com/mbps04.html
The 4Gig RAM limit is more critical than the change in graphics.
For every test that the HD 3000 beat the 320M or matched it, the CPU was largely at play. Jus' sayin'. Though really of the four Macs that ship sans a discrete GPU, the only one where it is sorely missed is the 13" MacBook Pro. For everyone else, the difference between the 320M and the HD 3000 won't matter at all.
I think you need to define very simple, because the MBA can run about everything. Lets face it, computers have been capable of running pretty much anything for the last decade, the upgrades stopped being as meaningful as they used to be quite some time ago.
I'm a Unix sysadmin, the MBA is my only computer. I do casual gaming on it, I use it to do graphics for my website using CS5, I use it for my work (using a VM), I use it to do my hobby coding, I use it to watch TV series and Anime in 720p. It has the upside of being light and small, so carrying it around on the motorcycle for when I'm on stand-by is less of a pain than 15" MBP or even a 13" MBP (which I had before, when it was called the Unibody Macbook).
Call me bat-**** crazy or my needs "simple", but it works for me as a stand-alone computer.
By "run everything", you can't possibly mean run games at "higher than medium" settings, nor edit lots of HD footage in something like Final Cut Pro. Though that's not what YOU use YOUR MacBook Air for, and really that's fine. I'm not trying to invalidate your purchase decision, man. I'm saying that on the whole, unless ultraportability ABSOLUTELY HAS TO BE A CONCERN, it's not the best of buys in an already over-priced Mac market. If you handed me $1000 and told me to buy a Mac laptop, I'd buy the white MacBook over the 11.6" Air every time. But that's a difference in opinion and frankly, I'd rather not argue difference in opinions.
If you don't need the power of a MacBook Pro, then a white MacBook is the best bang for the buck. Period. The only two reasons why an Air would be desirable over a white MacBook are superficial aesthetic preferences (please people, these are computers, not fashion accessories) and weight, which brings me to...
I am going even further - I like the featherweight of the 11" and the fact that after the update it is going to be a very serious machine is not to be neglected.
After the update, it'll still be the slowest Mac in the line-up. Serious machine? Perhaps compared to a Core 2 Duo machine, but then again, at that point, they'll all have Sandy Bridge and will thusly all be serious compared to the Core 2 Duo Macs in every respect (save for the IGP in tow, of course). Featherweight? Sure, but at that point, do I really want to be editing my Microsoft Word documents or Photoshop files on a computer with an 11.6" screen? And for the same cost as a full featured Mac laptop (white MacBook)? No thanks.
Last but not least, those 2 pounds you're talking about can be crucial when deciding what to take in your hand luggage when traveling by plane. I've been up to such a decision when I had to take my 2.8kg PC laptop. That's where I guess the name of the computer comes from - Macbook Air, designed for use on an Airplane.
A 13" MacBook Pro wouldn't make travel THAT much harder. Seriously. I've traveled with a white MacBook for quite a while, and honestly, an Air would make the bag lighter, but not to the point where I'd take it over a white MacBook or a 13" MacBook Pro. Were I doing constant walking with the thing, maybe. As it stands I don't have that kind of mobile computing lifestyle, nor do I know many people that do.
The integrated Intel HD 3000 seems to be about equal to the integrated GeForce 320M when Barefeets did their tests on vidoe games.
On Portal, the HD3000 was 68FPS and the 320M was 65FPS.
On X-Plane, the HD3000 was 38FPS and the 320M was 43FPS.
Certainly worth moving to SB processors.
http://www.barefeats.com/mbps04.html
The 4Gig RAM limit is more critical than the change in graphics.
For every test that the HD 3000 beat the 320M or matched it, the CPU was largely at play. Jus' sayin'. Though really of the four Macs that ship sans a discrete GPU, the only one where it is sorely missed is the 13" MacBook Pro. For everyone else, the difference between the 320M and the HD 3000 won't matter at all.
I think you need to define very simple, because the MBA can run about everything. Lets face it, computers have been capable of running pretty much anything for the last decade, the upgrades stopped being as meaningful as they used to be quite some time ago.
I'm a Unix sysadmin, the MBA is my only computer. I do casual gaming on it, I use it to do graphics for my website using CS5, I use it for my work (using a VM), I use it to do my hobby coding, I use it to watch TV series and Anime in 720p. It has the upside of being light and small, so carrying it around on the motorcycle for when I'm on stand-by is less of a pain than 15" MBP or even a 13" MBP (which I had before, when it was called the Unibody Macbook).
Call me bat-**** crazy or my needs "simple", but it works for me as a stand-alone computer.
By "run everything", you can't possibly mean run games at "higher than medium" settings, nor edit lots of HD footage in something like Final Cut Pro. Though that's not what YOU use YOUR MacBook Air for, and really that's fine. I'm not trying to invalidate your purchase decision, man. I'm saying that on the whole, unless ultraportability ABSOLUTELY HAS TO BE A CONCERN, it's not the best of buys in an already over-priced Mac market. If you handed me $1000 and told me to buy a Mac laptop, I'd buy the white MacBook over the 11.6" Air every time. But that's a difference in opinion and frankly, I'd rather not argue difference in opinions.
Erasmus
Jul 23, 05:09 AM
(Lots of Stuff...)
Well I bet that took a while...
Excellent points. Especially liked the Microsoft joke!
Never mind. Perhaps this forum will be ready for another of my spanners soon?
Let's hope Apple engineers don't do anything bodgy.
No word on TDP's of Clovertown and Kentsfield (Thanks mwswami)? Did I see that Kentsfield is two Conroes on the same chip? Would that mean the TDP would be roughly 130??? :eek: :eek: :eek:
Certainly Uncool :cool:
Won't give up hope yet on upgradeable iMac. Quad Cores here I come!
BTW, I feel like such a noob for asking this, but when they say Santa Rosa will be able to support an 800Mhz FSB, is that talking about the RAM speed, up from 667Mhz?
Well I bet that took a while...
Excellent points. Especially liked the Microsoft joke!
Never mind. Perhaps this forum will be ready for another of my spanners soon?
Let's hope Apple engineers don't do anything bodgy.
No word on TDP's of Clovertown and Kentsfield (Thanks mwswami)? Did I see that Kentsfield is two Conroes on the same chip? Would that mean the TDP would be roughly 130??? :eek: :eek: :eek:
Certainly Uncool :cool:
Won't give up hope yet on upgradeable iMac. Quad Cores here I come!
BTW, I feel like such a noob for asking this, but when they say Santa Rosa will be able to support an 800Mhz FSB, is that talking about the RAM speed, up from 667Mhz?
brenden
Apr 8, 07:46 AM
Not surprised. Best buy has always been a super shady retailer with subpar employees. Sadly its the easiest place to buy electronics other than ordering online.
RedTomato
Sep 13, 12:36 PM
I read the link above about the ZFS filesystem.
Hmm this could remove a lot of the pain I currently have juggling disks on the cheap.
(I hold a lot of footage of deaf people signing for a project, and don't really have any budget to pay for disk storage. I currently have about 200 GB left on a 1 TB RAID5 system inside a Powermac G3)
It seems the concept of individual volumes will vanish, and instead ZFS creates a common pool of filespace and looks after the checksums etc itself. New drives can just be thrown into the array and ZFS will look after optimising the array I/O.
Mixing 15k rpm speed demon drives with 5400rpm storage hog drives mmmm...
I look forwards to being able to buy a cheap chassis with just a power unit and space for 10 drives, and being able to put that next to my G3, and having ZFS sort out what to do with the 8-9 drives in there.
Something like that hooked up to a Cloverton should give significant HD speedup. Not as much as a ramdisk tho :)
One thing, the article says ZFS can cope with drives being removed from the pool. I'd like to see more detail on that. It surely copes with 1 out of 4 drives failing - what about 3 out of 4? What if 3 x 20GB 15k rpm drives fail and the 1x750GB 5400rpm drive is still up?
Hmm this could remove a lot of the pain I currently have juggling disks on the cheap.
(I hold a lot of footage of deaf people signing for a project, and don't really have any budget to pay for disk storage. I currently have about 200 GB left on a 1 TB RAID5 system inside a Powermac G3)
It seems the concept of individual volumes will vanish, and instead ZFS creates a common pool of filespace and looks after the checksums etc itself. New drives can just be thrown into the array and ZFS will look after optimising the array I/O.
Mixing 15k rpm speed demon drives with 5400rpm storage hog drives mmmm...
I look forwards to being able to buy a cheap chassis with just a power unit and space for 10 drives, and being able to put that next to my G3, and having ZFS sort out what to do with the 8-9 drives in there.
Something like that hooked up to a Cloverton should give significant HD speedup. Not as much as a ramdisk tho :)
One thing, the article says ZFS can cope with drives being removed from the pool. I'd like to see more detail on that. It surely copes with 1 out of 4 drives failing - what about 3 out of 4? What if 3 x 20GB 15k rpm drives fail and the 1x750GB 5400rpm drive is still up?
barkomatic
Mar 31, 04:00 PM
not when Google blocks handset makers from releasing innovations that would be good for consumers but bad for google. they may have tried to do such strong-arming -- a geo-services company claims it was shut-out by the makers due to google not wanting makers to license optional alternatives to google services.
From the sounds of it, Google is trying to prevent the release of phones that run poorly and are *bad* for consumers. Google is a private company and they can do what they want--just like Apple. Handset makers can go back to their lousy proprietary mobile operating systems--but I really doubt they will. This is a win for consumers in the long run.
It's a temporary lose for those who like to tinker though.
From the sounds of it, Google is trying to prevent the release of phones that run poorly and are *bad* for consumers. Google is a private company and they can do what they want--just like Apple. Handset makers can go back to their lousy proprietary mobile operating systems--but I really doubt they will. This is a win for consumers in the long run.
It's a temporary lose for those who like to tinker though.
AidenShaw
Aug 22, 09:08 AM
Gonna get a ton of switchers - even if they only ever run Windows XP on it.
One big problem with running XP, though, is that you need the Boot Camp drivers from Apple.
If the MacIntel Pro were able to use any available device (any graphics, any PCIe card which has a Woodie driver, ...), then buying one to run Vista or Windows 2003 would make more sense.
As long as you're tied to proprietary drivers, though, it isn't nearly as attractive. There shouldn't be any Apple software needed to run Linux, Solaris or Windows, outside of a bog-standard BIOS implementation.
Hopefully, however, the Apple pricing will push down the prices on other Xeon workstations. It doesn't make a lot of sense for a comparable Dell to be $600 more than an Apple.
One big problem with running XP, though, is that you need the Boot Camp drivers from Apple.
If the MacIntel Pro were able to use any available device (any graphics, any PCIe card which has a Woodie driver, ...), then buying one to run Vista or Windows 2003 would make more sense.
As long as you're tied to proprietary drivers, though, it isn't nearly as attractive. There shouldn't be any Apple software needed to run Linux, Solaris or Windows, outside of a bog-standard BIOS implementation.
Hopefully, however, the Apple pricing will push down the prices on other Xeon workstations. It doesn't make a lot of sense for a comparable Dell to be $600 more than an Apple.
MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 08:43 AM
I got it...
Octopros :D
Octopros :D
Lailoken
Mar 31, 05:52 PM
I've really loved my experience with Android so far. I've had an iPhone and a iPhone 3G and I am an iPhone developer.... yet I use Android.
Android will always be "open source" and this is not inconsistent with Google applying more control to stem inoperable fragmentation. These two ideas are not at odds.
I cannot wait for Google to do what I think Amazon is currently trying to do with their new App. Store.
That said I really like the new iPad 2, but sadly my next purchase would prolly be a i7 MacBook Pro.
Android will always be "open source" and this is not inconsistent with Google applying more control to stem inoperable fragmentation. These two ideas are not at odds.
I cannot wait for Google to do what I think Amazon is currently trying to do with their new App. Store.
That said I really like the new iPad 2, but sadly my next purchase would prolly be a i7 MacBook Pro.
shamino
Jul 21, 12:45 PM
I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
All I will say is that you are not a typical user. You are not even close to typical.
OK. So maybe you need ten thousand cores and three million gigabytes of RAM. Don't think for an instant that the majority of the world shares your requirements.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
All I will say is that you are not a typical user. You are not even close to typical.
OK. So maybe you need ten thousand cores and three million gigabytes of RAM. Don't think for an instant that the majority of the world shares your requirements.
alexpaul
Mar 23, 05:19 AM
The features looks pretty cool for this price tag, but what about the apps? If it support only BB app world then for sure they won't win!
JoEw
Mar 31, 08:13 PM
Google wants to do with android, what apple has been doing for the past 4 years with ios. Actually make money!
The only reason google made android open source was to get a lot of money invested in the ecosystem (HTC is basically dependent on android now). I see google charging handset manufacturers like HTC for it's OS in the near future.
Because when all is said and done, Google is a company and like any other company, it's goal is profit.
The only reason google made android open source was to get a lot of money invested in the ecosystem (HTC is basically dependent on android now). I see google charging handset manufacturers like HTC for it's OS in the near future.
Because when all is said and done, Google is a company and like any other company, it's goal is profit.
shawnce
Aug 16, 11:21 PM
Still waiting for game benchmarks...
I think you will be happy with rather amazing performance boost you will see from WoW in the near future when running on a Mac Pro (it isn't all a result of just hardware either). Expect other games to improve as well.
I think you will be happy with rather amazing performance boost you will see from WoW in the near future when running on a Mac Pro (it isn't all a result of just hardware either). Expect other games to improve as well.
DocNo
Apr 11, 10:09 AM
This is a little more out there but my friend has a theory that Apple has let Kevin Smith use the new Final Cut to cut and make his new film that is coming it. The importance of this is that he feels movie making is going the way of music making these days. He believes anything under 20 million is going to be funded independently, not released via movie studios and will sell the movies directly to the theaters.
He feels only the big blockbuster movies like Transformers and stuff will be left the studios, much like many musicians are skipping the record companies and making and releasing music themselves.
And as with the iPhone and iPad, if you are hopelessly behind in a traditional market (i.e. Mac OSX vs. Windows) go create a new one (i.e. iOS)! I have no doubt this is where Apple is going...
He feels only the big blockbuster movies like Transformers and stuff will be left the studios, much like many musicians are skipping the record companies and making and releasing music themselves.
And as with the iPhone and iPad, if you are hopelessly behind in a traditional market (i.e. Mac OSX vs. Windows) go create a new one (i.e. iOS)! I have no doubt this is where Apple is going...
Benjy91
Mar 31, 02:52 PM
Please, enlighten us, how does fragmentation bite Android's ass when it is the #1 smartphone OS. Regardless what you think, Android and iOS are by far the most successful OS in the last 5 years.
How is it biting them in the ass? Android is the fastest growing OS with a larger share than IOS. I think it's been a very succesfull strategy.
I never said it's already got them, I said it would get them eventually, and now Google has seen this, and is now tightening control.
And how it will 'bite them in the ass' is with the user experience, users seeing apps on the Android Marketplace, but the app doesnt support their phone, or requires features their phone doesnt support, or their phone doesnt quite have the power to run it. Could crash their phone etc.
Their strategy ensured short-term gain, but problems later on.
Apple wont run into problems with iOS Fragmentation for a long time yet. And they can easily avoid these issues by officially not supporting older devices and preventing them accessing apps they cant run.
How is it biting them in the ass? Android is the fastest growing OS with a larger share than IOS. I think it's been a very succesfull strategy.
I never said it's already got them, I said it would get them eventually, and now Google has seen this, and is now tightening control.
And how it will 'bite them in the ass' is with the user experience, users seeing apps on the Android Marketplace, but the app doesnt support their phone, or requires features their phone doesnt support, or their phone doesnt quite have the power to run it. Could crash their phone etc.
Their strategy ensured short-term gain, but problems later on.
Apple wont run into problems with iOS Fragmentation for a long time yet. And they can easily avoid these issues by officially not supporting older devices and preventing them accessing apps they cant run.
epitaphic
Aug 18, 11:46 PM
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
Ace25
Aug 26, 04:10 PM
I am now pretty sure that new MacBooks are being released in the next few days.
I ordered one on the 17th of august and it was scheduled to ship on the 24th of august. Then for some reason it was bumped to a new ship date of august 31st, just enough time to drop a new merom processor in it!
I ordered one on the 17th of august and it was scheduled to ship on the 24th of august. Then for some reason it was bumped to a new ship date of august 31st, just enough time to drop a new merom processor in it!
wpotere
Apr 28, 08:11 AM
Sad, pathetic, misguided
Speaking of which...
Speaking of which...
chrmjenkins
Mar 22, 02:36 PM
With regards to Libya without the no fly zone there would have been a massacre, and without bombing Gaddafi's troops there isn't much hope of anything other than a stalemate, which is also unideal.
With the rebels on the ground it seems highly unlikely that we'll be in Libya for years to come or anything like that.
The big difference between Libya and Iraq is that in Iraq there wasn't a large insurgence controlling a decent proportion of the country before the troops went in.
Don't forget that we invaded one based on false intelligence. There's no denying what is happening in Libya. A dictator is slaughtering his own people. The fact that UN doesn't pass similar resolutions for all states with a current crisis of this magnitude falls on the UN, not the US.
With the rebels on the ground it seems highly unlikely that we'll be in Libya for years to come or anything like that.
The big difference between Libya and Iraq is that in Iraq there wasn't a large insurgence controlling a decent proportion of the country before the troops went in.
Don't forget that we invaded one based on false intelligence. There's no denying what is happening in Libya. A dictator is slaughtering his own people. The fact that UN doesn't pass similar resolutions for all states with a current crisis of this magnitude falls on the UN, not the US.
kirk26
Apr 6, 02:34 PM
I'm voting this positive only because this is such a low number and Apple is winning.