bad03xtreme
Apr 25, 02:28 PM
I should have become a lawyer.
Mr. Retrofire
Apr 6, 10:24 PM
And you obvioulsy don't understand what a GPGPU API is for. What good is running code through an API whose purpose is to offload your CPU by using ... your CPU.
See, that is exactly not the purpose of OpenCL. OpenCL can also use specialized DSPs, if someone writes a compiler for them. OpenCL is GPU-independent, which is a problem, if you want to optimize your OpenCL-code for a specific GPU.
If you really need the power of a GPU you could use CUDA and/or STREAM (the standards in the past 4 years). Most computer science labs use CUDA. No one needs OpenCL at the moment, because the solutions which work are based on CUDA and/or STREAM, not OpenCL.
This will change a bit in the next ten years, but the hardware-dependent languages CUDA/STREAM will never be replaced by OpenCL, at least not for high performance applications, which require direct GPU-access.
OpenCL is like C, you can use on CPUs, GPUs and DSPs.
See, that is exactly not the purpose of OpenCL. OpenCL can also use specialized DSPs, if someone writes a compiler for them. OpenCL is GPU-independent, which is a problem, if you want to optimize your OpenCL-code for a specific GPU.
If you really need the power of a GPU you could use CUDA and/or STREAM (the standards in the past 4 years). Most computer science labs use CUDA. No one needs OpenCL at the moment, because the solutions which work are based on CUDA and/or STREAM, not OpenCL.
This will change a bit in the next ten years, but the hardware-dependent languages CUDA/STREAM will never be replaced by OpenCL, at least not for high performance applications, which require direct GPU-access.
OpenCL is like C, you can use on CPUs, GPUs and DSPs.
Erasmus
Aug 27, 02:58 AM
I already have those stats, I want to see them drop in a high-end Conroe (~3GHz) so I would know that I could feasibly upgrade my 2GHz Core Duo in the future. It's possible, isn't it? I mean, the G5's were really hot, and the iMac enclosure could handle that, wouldn't the new Intel ones be able to handle the Conroe Extremes?
See Apple???
Yet another potential customer for iMac Ultra. We Want C2DE + X1900 and a 23" screen!
It has been demonstrated an iMac can take large amounts of heat. I should expect (With almost certainty) that iMac will get at least 2.4 Conroe, which should be quite a significant increase on its own, and possibly higher. 2.4 on the low end 17" model, 2.66 in 20" and the option of 2.93 or 3.2 in iMac Ultra! (Then Apple can gift me with one for coming up with such a great idea)
X1800's for the 17 and 20 inches, and X1900 for the 23".
Sounds good to me.
Extra space due to 23" could be used for the cooling of the twin fires of CPU and GPU.
See Apple???
Yet another potential customer for iMac Ultra. We Want C2DE + X1900 and a 23" screen!
It has been demonstrated an iMac can take large amounts of heat. I should expect (With almost certainty) that iMac will get at least 2.4 Conroe, which should be quite a significant increase on its own, and possibly higher. 2.4 on the low end 17" model, 2.66 in 20" and the option of 2.93 or 3.2 in iMac Ultra! (Then Apple can gift me with one for coming up with such a great idea)
X1800's for the 17 and 20 inches, and X1900 for the 23".
Sounds good to me.
Extra space due to 23" could be used for the cooling of the twin fires of CPU and GPU.
bobbleheadbob
Apr 10, 11:06 AM
I hope the new version comes in a box with a free t-shirt.
PeterQVenkman
Apr 5, 08:12 PM
Nobody's using Blu-Ray, in my experience.
There is a whole thread about that, though. Don't read it.
Perhaps a little hasty of me, I was simply meant to say that in my experience I've not ever been required to deliver anything on Blu-Ray, and that to my mind it was a purely consumer format.
I've been to quite a few film festivals that take entries on Blu-Ray.
Apple has two mountains to climb: 1) to keep up with their competition where they used to lead. (2) They have to convince users that the mac as a pro platform is a good investment.
There is a whole thread about that, though. Don't read it.
Perhaps a little hasty of me, I was simply meant to say that in my experience I've not ever been required to deliver anything on Blu-Ray, and that to my mind it was a purely consumer format.
I've been to quite a few film festivals that take entries on Blu-Ray.
Apple has two mountains to climb: 1) to keep up with their competition where they used to lead. (2) They have to convince users that the mac as a pro platform is a good investment.
digitalbiker
Aug 7, 08:19 PM
Wait. Does this mean that the Leopard doesn't support current MBP or MB? the ones that use 32 bit Yonah based Core Duo CPU.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. It works with both 32 and 64 bit CPU's. The only thing you won't be able to do is run 64 bit apps in 64 bit mode.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. It works with both 32 and 64 bit CPU's. The only thing you won't be able to do is run 64 bit apps in 64 bit mode.
LagunaSol
Apr 19, 01:57 PM
wow @ post 2.
apple will have a hard time fighting this in court.
Hardly. Samsung would have been fine had they stuck to that original theme, rather than move into Apple's house as a squatter with a subsequent model:
http://www.tmobileniles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/iphone4-vs-galaxy-s-head.jpg
apple will have a hard time fighting this in court.
Hardly. Samsung would have been fine had they stuck to that original theme, rather than move into Apple's house as a squatter with a subsequent model:
http://www.tmobileniles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/iphone4-vs-galaxy-s-head.jpg
.jpg "ull shark attack lake")
Popeye206
Mar 31, 04:16 PM
And the Apple haters do yet another 180...
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
+1! Love this analogy!
You could also add to it:
1984-1991: GUI? Who needs a GUI? Real computers use command lines!
1999 - Vista: Thank goodness that Microsoft invented the GUI interface.
:D
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
+1! Love this analogy!
You could also add to it:
1984-1991: GUI? Who needs a GUI? Real computers use command lines!
1999 - Vista: Thank goodness that Microsoft invented the GUI interface.
:D
shamino
Jul 20, 09:32 AM
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
Actually, this is well documented.
There are serious electrical and physical problems with jacking up clock speeds much further than they are now. Intel managed to push their chips to 3.4GHz, but the power consumed was tremendous.
When you can't ramp up the clock speed, your next best alternative is to go for as much parallelism as you can - increase the number of instructions you can execute in a single clock.
Chip makers achieve this in a wide variety of ways, including multiple CPU packages on a motherboard, multiple cores per CPU package, multiple threads per core, and multiple functional units per thread.
And yes, a single CPU at 3GHz can easily consume more power than two CPUs (or two cores) at 1.5GHz.
As for your theoretical 24GHz processor, such a thing is simply not possible with today's technology. (Well, there were some university experiments that hit insanely fast speeds, but don't expect commercial products any time soon.) Given the heat/power curves of today's chips, I wouldn't want to think about the cooling requirements of a 24GHz chip if you could somehow manage to build one.
Of course, breakthroughs do happen, and higher clock speeds might become practical in the future. But multi-core tech isn't going away - we'll simply end up with multiple cores at higher clock speeds.
Actually, this is well documented.
There are serious electrical and physical problems with jacking up clock speeds much further than they are now. Intel managed to push their chips to 3.4GHz, but the power consumed was tremendous.
When you can't ramp up the clock speed, your next best alternative is to go for as much parallelism as you can - increase the number of instructions you can execute in a single clock.
Chip makers achieve this in a wide variety of ways, including multiple CPU packages on a motherboard, multiple cores per CPU package, multiple threads per core, and multiple functional units per thread.
And yes, a single CPU at 3GHz can easily consume more power than two CPUs (or two cores) at 1.5GHz.
As for your theoretical 24GHz processor, such a thing is simply not possible with today's technology. (Well, there were some university experiments that hit insanely fast speeds, but don't expect commercial products any time soon.) Given the heat/power curves of today's chips, I wouldn't want to think about the cooling requirements of a 24GHz chip if you could somehow manage to build one.
Of course, breakthroughs do happen, and higher clock speeds might become practical in the future. But multi-core tech isn't going away - we'll simply end up with multiple cores at higher clock speeds.
leekohler
Mar 1, 10:23 AM
Lee, you should already know my answer to that question. It's an emphatic "no." Nor do I support the gay rights movement.
I don't tell others what to do, but that doesn't mean I think it's all right for them do everything they want to do. I'll share my opinions with others if they're willing to hear them. I don't want to control anyone, and I will not be a codependent caregiver. I refuse to protect others from negative consequences when they need to learn from them.
But you ARE trying to control others Bill. It's quite obvious. There are no negative consequences inherent to being gay. I'm a 43 year old man, and quite happy. The only negative consequences I've suffered have been at the hands of people like you, who think you know how everyone should live and try to force your beliefs on us with laws. You absolutely want to control others, or at the very least, impose your punishments on us.
My parents, especially my Mom, hated to see me do some foolish things when I was a boy. They let me walk the half mile to the steakhouse when they knew that I probably would have been too tired to walk back home. They let me stand outdoors in the winter when I tried to run away from home in the winter. The front porch was too icy for me to stand on, so I couldn't walk down the steps.
Hmm...but did they make any laws against you doing any of those things?
I believe that people with same-sex attractions are endangering themselves at least physically when they have sex with each other. So I'll post a link to some evidence for my opinion (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html). Notice, the document's author is a medical doctor.
There are risks inherent in any sexual activity Bill, heterosexual or homosexual. I'm well aware of the risks of both. Apparently, you seem to feel that all gay men engage in sodomy, which is far from the truth. Also, many of these statistics are based on the results of promiscuous behavior. Gay people marrying would discourage promiscuity, which would most likely reduce those statistics. One would think you should be pro gay marriage rights in that case. But hey, we all know that's not what your real concern is. Your concern is to get everyone to conform to your rules.
I don't tell others what to do, but that doesn't mean I think it's all right for them do everything they want to do. I'll share my opinions with others if they're willing to hear them. I don't want to control anyone, and I will not be a codependent caregiver. I refuse to protect others from negative consequences when they need to learn from them.
But you ARE trying to control others Bill. It's quite obvious. There are no negative consequences inherent to being gay. I'm a 43 year old man, and quite happy. The only negative consequences I've suffered have been at the hands of people like you, who think you know how everyone should live and try to force your beliefs on us with laws. You absolutely want to control others, or at the very least, impose your punishments on us.
My parents, especially my Mom, hated to see me do some foolish things when I was a boy. They let me walk the half mile to the steakhouse when they knew that I probably would have been too tired to walk back home. They let me stand outdoors in the winter when I tried to run away from home in the winter. The front porch was too icy for me to stand on, so I couldn't walk down the steps.
Hmm...but did they make any laws against you doing any of those things?
I believe that people with same-sex attractions are endangering themselves at least physically when they have sex with each other. So I'll post a link to some evidence for my opinion (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html). Notice, the document's author is a medical doctor.
There are risks inherent in any sexual activity Bill, heterosexual or homosexual. I'm well aware of the risks of both. Apparently, you seem to feel that all gay men engage in sodomy, which is far from the truth. Also, many of these statistics are based on the results of promiscuous behavior. Gay people marrying would discourage promiscuity, which would most likely reduce those statistics. One would think you should be pro gay marriage rights in that case. But hey, we all know that's not what your real concern is. Your concern is to get everyone to conform to your rules.
Blue Fox
Apr 25, 01:56 PM
I dont understand how anyone would get the info from your phone.
And even if they did, what would they do with it? Go to my friends house and come visit me at my address? All that information has been in the local phone book for decades.
Not to mention, doesn't the file only store the nearest cell tower and/or WiFi network? I've even read that it can be 2-5 miles aways from where you were even at, hardly the "tracking" people make it out to be.
And even if they did, what would they do with it? Go to my friends house and come visit me at my address? All that information has been in the local phone book for decades.
Not to mention, doesn't the file only store the nearest cell tower and/or WiFi network? I've even read that it can be 2-5 miles aways from where you were even at, hardly the "tracking" people make it out to be.
QCassidy352
Jul 20, 03:53 PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
What? Apple*differentiates the XServes by having them 1U thick and rackmountable. One buys a rackmount server not because it's faster but because it's smaller and fits in a rack.
yeah, what he said. Apple does not have to distinguish powermacs from servers with processor speeds. People (businesses) who need servers are not going to buy powermacs to do the job even if they are a little bit faster or cheaper; they are going to buy real rack-mounted servers.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
What? Apple*differentiates the XServes by having them 1U thick and rackmountable. One buys a rackmount server not because it's faster but because it's smaller and fits in a rack.
yeah, what he said. Apple does not have to distinguish powermacs from servers with processor speeds. People (businesses) who need servers are not going to buy powermacs to do the job even if they are a little bit faster or cheaper; they are going to buy real rack-mounted servers.
Hastings101
Apr 25, 01:54 PM
I don't care if Google does it, that doesn't give Apple free reign to do it as well. Both Google and Apple need to be looked at a bit more closely.
Also, it's free publicity for Apple, especially if this becomes a big case :p
Also, it's free publicity for Apple, especially if this becomes a big case :p
dongmin
Sep 19, 10:02 AM
It gets annoying. Why? Because it's true and most people don't want to admit it.
In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.
As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.
Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.While you make some valid points, you overlook others:
1. As soon as the new model comes out, the older models will drop in price. So even if you aren't getting the fastest and greatest, even if you're buying the lowest end MBP, you'll benefit from the price break.
2. MBPs are expensive computers. You're investing in something that you'll keep around for 3-4 years. I want to future-proof my computer as much as possible. Features like easily-swappable HD and fast graphics card will affect "the average user" 2+ years from now (pro'ly sooner) when everyone's downloading and streaming HD videos and OS X has all this new eye-candy that will require a fast graphics card.
3. There are other features than just a 10% increase in CPU power that we are hoping in the next MBP, including a magnetic latch, easily-access to HD and RAM, and better heat management. Certainly the average Joe will be able to benefit from these features, even if all you do is word process and surf the web.
In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.
As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.
Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.While you make some valid points, you overlook others:
1. As soon as the new model comes out, the older models will drop in price. So even if you aren't getting the fastest and greatest, even if you're buying the lowest end MBP, you'll benefit from the price break.
2. MBPs are expensive computers. You're investing in something that you'll keep around for 3-4 years. I want to future-proof my computer as much as possible. Features like easily-swappable HD and fast graphics card will affect "the average user" 2+ years from now (pro'ly sooner) when everyone's downloading and streaming HD videos and OS X has all this new eye-candy that will require a fast graphics card.
3. There are other features than just a 10% increase in CPU power that we are hoping in the next MBP, including a magnetic latch, easily-access to HD and RAM, and better heat management. Certainly the average Joe will be able to benefit from these features, even if all you do is word process and surf the web.
GooMan
Apr 12, 12:42 PM
I really don't know what to do now.
I have a 3GS, decided to skip the iPhone 4 (was eligible for upgrade), and my contract is up in June or July. I don't want to buy an iPhone 4 knowing an iPhone 5 is around the corner. However, if the iPhone 5 has LTE I do not want it and I guess I'll have no choice but to buy an iPhone 4 then. If I am forced to buy the iPhone 4 I might as well buy an iPhone 4 today instead of waiting until the fall.
I have a 3GS, decided to skip the iPhone 4 (was eligible for upgrade), and my contract is up in June or July. I don't want to buy an iPhone 4 knowing an iPhone 5 is around the corner. However, if the iPhone 5 has LTE I do not want it and I guess I'll have no choice but to buy an iPhone 4 then. If I am forced to buy the iPhone 4 I might as well buy an iPhone 4 today instead of waiting until the fall.
bobthedino
Apr 27, 08:48 AM
Why did it take so long for Apple to release a statement?
How long would have been reasonable, do you think? A week is not too bad, especially considering we've just had the Easter holidays.
Also it's surely better to spend time to get something right. Clearly Apple has had to investigate the iOS source code to find out what was actually going on, as it obviously wasn't behaving as expected. Finding the right engineers and actually doing the work isn't a matter of hours.
How long would have been reasonable, do you think? A week is not too bad, especially considering we've just had the Easter holidays.
Also it's surely better to spend time to get something right. Clearly Apple has had to investigate the iOS source code to find out what was actually going on, as it obviously wasn't behaving as expected. Finding the right engineers and actually doing the work isn't a matter of hours.
TripHop
Jun 18, 06:30 AM
He said they gave up and that corporate is just going to send out whatever allocation next week not based on any PIN numbers since most stores give-up trying to get them. :rolleyes:
Gelfin
Mar 4, 04:37 PM
She rephrased what he had said which implied similar meaning
If you are suggesting she edited her post, the version quoted in your reply matches what she posted, and neither one of them seem to imply any such thing. I didn't ask you to restate the claim. I asked you to explain it.
If you are suggesting she edited her post, the version quoted in your reply matches what she posted, and neither one of them seem to imply any such thing. I didn't ask you to restate the claim. I asked you to explain it.
mcrain
Apr 27, 01:49 PM
Does anyone know what would have actually happened if President Obama was disqualified to be president? I suspect that all this effort by the crazy nuts in the birther movement would have done nothing but remove the Vice from Vice President Biden.
I doubt the election would have been given to the losing party/candidates. The election was, after all, for both President Obama and Vice President Biden.
I doubt the election would have been given to the losing party/candidates. The election was, after all, for both President Obama and Vice President Biden.
fivepoint
Mar 23, 02:20 PM
Again, Fivepoint, you forget that the President was selling the Iraq war with suspicious and weak information that the many questioned. It turns out they were right. Pre-war, the big issue was whether the war was justified based on the evidence being pushed by the President. The criticism President Bush faced thereafter had a lot to do with the fact that he lied to the American people in order to start a poorly planned war. They bungled every aspect of a war they lied to get us into. There were plenty of reasons to be critical.
"Lying" implies intent. Are you accusing them of lying, or getting it wrong?
Yes, there were many reasons to be critical.
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?
Out of curiousity, what do you expect? I expect conservative congressmen and women to support a conservative president, but to think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. I don't respect blind support like what they did under GWB. Similarly, I expect liberal congressmen and women to support a liberal president, but to also think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. Some are speaking out, and some are not blindly supporting President Obama. Can you acknowledge that the liberals are doing a better job with consistency than the GOP? If not, how do you explain GOP opposition to the Libya action?
Part of what you say is true, in that I should EXPECT people to be more critical of the other side. This is true. But I also think it's important (especially in this forum) to point out hypocrisy stemming from the left so that the Macrumors Echo Chamber doesn't keep you all in denial. What I personally expect is people to stand on principles, and not on parties. What I expect is that people live their lives in a honorable way and present a consistent philosophy. This is the same reason I rip on neo-con Republicans for talking about fiscal conservatism when history has shown us that their real world actions when in power are very different from their rhetoric... even if they still aren't as bad as the Democrats... it's not good enough. Both parties are bad at it, too many people simply tow the party line and don't think for themselves.
It sure is easy to peg me isn't it? Too bad if you go back over my posts you will find more than enough denouncing involvement in Iraq / Afghanistan.
It's much easier than actually addressing your real views... it's a defense mechanism which she uses to avoid serious debate.
If you are supporting non-intervention, than I disagree. I support the notion that the UN (using member-nations' pooled military or civilian assets) should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions.
Being a 'non-interventionist' does not mean that you NEVER support war, it means that you avoid it whenever possible. It means that you are far less prone to military intervention than someone who does not care about the values of non-interventionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism
Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
"Lying" implies intent. Are you accusing them of lying, or getting it wrong?
Yes, there were many reasons to be critical.
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?
Out of curiousity, what do you expect? I expect conservative congressmen and women to support a conservative president, but to think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. I don't respect blind support like what they did under GWB. Similarly, I expect liberal congressmen and women to support a liberal president, but to also think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. Some are speaking out, and some are not blindly supporting President Obama. Can you acknowledge that the liberals are doing a better job with consistency than the GOP? If not, how do you explain GOP opposition to the Libya action?
Part of what you say is true, in that I should EXPECT people to be more critical of the other side. This is true. But I also think it's important (especially in this forum) to point out hypocrisy stemming from the left so that the Macrumors Echo Chamber doesn't keep you all in denial. What I personally expect is people to stand on principles, and not on parties. What I expect is that people live their lives in a honorable way and present a consistent philosophy. This is the same reason I rip on neo-con Republicans for talking about fiscal conservatism when history has shown us that their real world actions when in power are very different from their rhetoric... even if they still aren't as bad as the Democrats... it's not good enough. Both parties are bad at it, too many people simply tow the party line and don't think for themselves.
It sure is easy to peg me isn't it? Too bad if you go back over my posts you will find more than enough denouncing involvement in Iraq / Afghanistan.
It's much easier than actually addressing your real views... it's a defense mechanism which she uses to avoid serious debate.
If you are supporting non-intervention, than I disagree. I support the notion that the UN (using member-nations' pooled military or civilian assets) should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions.
Being a 'non-interventionist' does not mean that you NEVER support war, it means that you avoid it whenever possible. It means that you are far less prone to military intervention than someone who does not care about the values of non-interventionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism
Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
MattInOz
Apr 6, 11:30 PM
Although the only thing that will ultimately matter is what Apple releases on Tuesday, if you want to get an inkling as to why FCP development has been at loggerheads since do yourself a favour and read a couple articles from Philip Hodgett's blog on FCP, QTkit, Cocoa, and it's unfortunate collision with OSX's 64 bit platform development.
http://www.philiphodgetts.com/category/technology/apple-pro-apps/
Which has been in development longer FCP overhaul or iPhone?
AV foundation was overkill for iOS from the outset so that would suggest is was always intended for FCP.
His articles have a funny assumption that the OS team has the most secrecy.
Surely the more valuable projects Like FCP have greater access to information and the greater control over when the broader company gets to see their work. Sure they would have been trumped to iPhone team who would seem to have free reign. The CoreOS team would seem like they are the most open their job is to turn the private API's developed by the product teams into to a public developer platform. A lot of their work is even open source.
http://www.philiphodgetts.com/category/technology/apple-pro-apps/
Which has been in development longer FCP overhaul or iPhone?
AV foundation was overkill for iOS from the outset so that would suggest is was always intended for FCP.
His articles have a funny assumption that the OS team has the most secrecy.
Surely the more valuable projects Like FCP have greater access to information and the greater control over when the broader company gets to see their work. Sure they would have been trumped to iPhone team who would seem to have free reign. The CoreOS team would seem like they are the most open their job is to turn the private API's developed by the product teams into to a public developer platform. A lot of their work is even open source.
simie
Aug 17, 05:22 AM
I think that these tests are poor regardless of the results. Testing is all based on evidence and I see none, just what they say are the results.
When you run a test you normally document the process for the test conditions. You don't just say Photoshop CS2 - MP aware actions, but which ones - why didn't they use the Photoshop test.
"For FCP 5, we rendered a 20 second HD clip we had imported and dropped into a sequence."
Does this mean they imported a 20 second clip into a sequence and had to render the clip before it would play with the rest of the sequence.
They basically used the render tools in the sequence menu. Why measure something like that.
When you run a test you normally document the process for the test conditions. You don't just say Photoshop CS2 - MP aware actions, but which ones - why didn't they use the Photoshop test.
"For FCP 5, we rendered a 20 second HD clip we had imported and dropped into a sequence."
Does this mean they imported a 20 second clip into a sequence and had to render the clip before it would play with the rest of the sequence.
They basically used the render tools in the sequence menu. Why measure something like that.
Unspeaked
Sep 19, 10:56 AM
Just make a box on the front page that has a picture of a MBP and let it say "the fastest just got faster" or something.
The fastest?
If that were the case, no one here would be complaining...
The fastest?
If that were the case, no one here would be complaining...
Bill McEnaney
Mar 7, 07:21 AM
I won't rejoin this discussion. But since neko girl may be waiting for my reply, I'll only suggest a source (http://www.tfp.org/images/books/Defending_A_Higher_Law.pdf).