daneoni
Aug 22, 10:18 PM
Yeah im not surprised. I went to my local store today and saw one in all its glory attached to a 30" ACD. It was VERY fast, system prefs launched in micro seconds, a meaty FCP project opened in less than 5 seconds same for Aperture & Logic, 1080p HD trailers were chewed and spit out using less than 10% of processing power. Totally amazing and best part...its very quiet. I played with a Quad G5 once and it sounded like a jet engine taking off.
I defo want one but it'll cost me an arm and leg. Sigh...
I defo want one but it'll cost me an arm and leg. Sigh...
gnasher729
Jul 20, 01:26 PM
But as some already pointed out, many applications can't use multiple cores, therefore you won't get any performance improvements with multi cores.
True, but many applications are fast enough on a single core, and applications that are not fast enough _will_ be modified when multiple processors are common.
True, but many applications are fast enough on a single core, and applications that are not fast enough _will_ be modified when multiple processors are common.
Daremo
Apr 19, 01:28 PM
The sales numbers are impressive, but not surprising.
bretm
Aug 17, 12:07 AM
Was there any doubt it wouldn't be a lot faster? I mean, I know it was already plenty fast, but come on...
But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
Lollypop
Jul 28, 04:07 AM
I would really like to se a mid range mac, not really fond of the illustrations above but the extra expansion of the pro line would be apreciated but at a more affordable price. I use a few older powermacs for servers but I really would like something with a bit more processing power... :D and something with a bit more longevity, something like a nice new Core 2 Duo Extreme! LOL
chatin
Aug 18, 09:55 PM
Here is the link to the fast memory.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?DEPA=0&type=&Description=5300+fb+dimm&Submit=ENE&Ntk=all&N=0&minPrice=&maxPrice=&Go.x=0&Go.y=0
The desktop literally explodes onto the screen! The clock timer gets only one quarter the way around one rotation. I'll see if I can shoot a quicktime movie for future Quad G5 switchers.
:) :p
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?DEPA=0&type=&Description=5300+fb+dimm&Submit=ENE&Ntk=all&N=0&minPrice=&maxPrice=&Go.x=0&Go.y=0
The desktop literally explodes onto the screen! The clock timer gets only one quarter the way around one rotation. I'll see if I can shoot a quicktime movie for future Quad G5 switchers.
:) :p
Bill McEnaney
Mar 1, 05:00 AM
What I do is none of your damn business. And your opinion has no bearing on my life. Why you feel the need to tell others what to do is beyond me. Take care of your own house, let me take care of mine.
I don't want to know what Lee does. I've said what I believe. I haven't told anyone to do anything.
I don't want to know what Lee does. I've said what I believe. I haven't told anyone to do anything.
shawnce
Jul 14, 06:45 PM
Agreed. I can make an argument for the consumer machines, where perhaps 512 MB is sufficient for basic users. Specifically, why force them to pay more for 1 GB if they don't need it. But when it comes to the Pro machines, as if anyone buying one of these beasts is not going to require at least 2 GB of RAM, let alone 1 GB. No one buys a quad Xeon Powermac to just surf the Internet and check their e-mail. :cool:
Personally I go the BTO route at Apple.com for my PowerMacs and downgrade all RAM to the minimum cost and buy my RAM from a trusted 3rd party vendor for a savings of at least 10% if not more so.
Personally I go the BTO route at Apple.com for my PowerMacs and downgrade all RAM to the minimum cost and buy my RAM from a trusted 3rd party vendor for a savings of at least 10% if not more so.
citizenzen
Apr 28, 10:08 AM
Imagine that, three responses which utterly fail to refute let alone dispute my clear and truthful argument.
Here 5P. Let me try to explain this in a (hopefully) clear and truthful manner.
Tribalism works on a variety of levels. You don't care about conservative blacks because your shared conservative ideology overcomes any racial issues. The fact that you feel a kinship, based on the political ties can even fool you into thinking that you've become color blind. "I like Colin Powell, that proves I'm not a racist."
But when the overriding political connection doesn't exist then the subtler identifiers come into play. The tensions over race, religion, class or gender are always there, they're just overcome by political kinship. Take away that basis for agreement and those other aspects are more prone to color our perception of that person.
Here 5P. Let me try to explain this in a (hopefully) clear and truthful manner.
Tribalism works on a variety of levels. You don't care about conservative blacks because your shared conservative ideology overcomes any racial issues. The fact that you feel a kinship, based on the political ties can even fool you into thinking that you've become color blind. "I like Colin Powell, that proves I'm not a racist."
But when the overriding political connection doesn't exist then the subtler identifiers come into play. The tensions over race, religion, class or gender are always there, they're just overcome by political kinship. Take away that basis for agreement and those other aspects are more prone to color our perception of that person.
thatisme
Apr 27, 08:43 AM
No it's not.
And I think MOST people aren't blowing anything out of proportion. Being concerned about tracking information/privacy issues is important. Most people (stop generalizing just because some on this board are) are NOT over-reacting but were calling for deeper investigation into the issue.
Pot, meet kettle.
And I think MOST people aren't blowing anything out of proportion. Being concerned about tracking information/privacy issues is important. Most people (stop generalizing just because some on this board are) are NOT over-reacting but were calling for deeper investigation into the issue.
Pot, meet kettle.
FoxHoundADAM
Apr 11, 11:56 AM
Ugh. The iPhone 4, while beautiful, still needs a larger screen for my liking. Maybe I just bite the bullet and switch to the Inspire. Save some cash in the process.
joe8232
Aug 26, 05:01 PM
I have just ordered a mbp :( It wasn't supposed to ship until Monday but it shipped early :( If the rumors are true will I be able to send it back and get the new one? Has anyone had any experience in returning unwanted stuff to apple as time is not on my side (leave for uni on the 16th Sept)
chatin
Aug 18, 08:42 PM
From the time the Apple logo is displayed. There is a pause before that starts, I'd say only 10 seconds or so.
eb6
Sep 19, 10:10 AM
30 days on refurbs might mean something actually...
Any ideas?
Could be that they are expecting a flood of returns after they introduce the new MB and MBP. And they are waiting so they can send out fresh referbs. Just a though.
Any ideas?
Could be that they are expecting a flood of returns after they introduce the new MB and MBP. And they are waiting so they can send out fresh referbs. Just a though.
Kan-O-Z
Mar 31, 02:57 PM
You could say the same thing about Apple though. The Apple fad will go away and the extremely closed ecosystem which seems to not be really developing much in terms of UI or having an actual roadmap could end iOS.
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
I am an Apple fan and I do recognize pros and cons with both platforms. When you have control and integration of hardware and software, you have a much better experience, more stability, better overall hardware quality (both hardware and software), etc. The "open" systems don't control anything so anything goes, including installing any app you may find anywhere and customize things to your hearts content.
What I would like to say is that for 95% of people out there, the advantages of iOS are far more important than the advantages of Android. Honestly most people are very happy with all of the capabilities of the iPhone (and app store) all of which the iPhone performs beautifully. On top of that the Apple ecosystem is so easy and so integrated...Android can't compete. Think about renting a movie on your iPhone, streaming songs and videos to your TV, buying songs and books on the fly, etc...on top of which many ppl have extensive iTunes content and it integrates right in. Where do you start with Andriod with all this? And remember that people on this forum are the techies...and don't represent 95% of people out there.
Kan-O-Z
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
I am an Apple fan and I do recognize pros and cons with both platforms. When you have control and integration of hardware and software, you have a much better experience, more stability, better overall hardware quality (both hardware and software), etc. The "open" systems don't control anything so anything goes, including installing any app you may find anywhere and customize things to your hearts content.
What I would like to say is that for 95% of people out there, the advantages of iOS are far more important than the advantages of Android. Honestly most people are very happy with all of the capabilities of the iPhone (and app store) all of which the iPhone performs beautifully. On top of that the Apple ecosystem is so easy and so integrated...Android can't compete. Think about renting a movie on your iPhone, streaming songs and videos to your TV, buying songs and books on the fly, etc...on top of which many ppl have extensive iTunes content and it integrates right in. Where do you start with Andriod with all this? And remember that people on this forum are the techies...and don't represent 95% of people out there.
Kan-O-Z
Iconoclysm
Apr 19, 06:29 PM
Alright, I was originally going to take Apple's side on this, since I could clearly see it looks a lot like iOS, but having looked at Samsung's F700, I don' think Apple has any right to sue..
Although the Samsung F700 has very simple icons, Apple clearly has the same placement of icons, even looking at the bottom you find the four dock like icons..
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9559/samsungf700cellular.jpg
I'd say that Apple copied Samsung :P.. Honestly I'm not one to take sides just because I like Apple Products, I just think its wrong to sue since Samsung clearly had this type of UI first.. Apple has no right to sue..
Which launched 6 months after the original iPhone...and was displayed in February of 2007 with an entirely different interface.
Although the Samsung F700 has very simple icons, Apple clearly has the same placement of icons, even looking at the bottom you find the four dock like icons..
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9559/samsungf700cellular.jpg
I'd say that Apple copied Samsung :P.. Honestly I'm not one to take sides just because I like Apple Products, I just think its wrong to sue since Samsung clearly had this type of UI first.. Apple has no right to sue..
Which launched 6 months after the original iPhone...and was displayed in February of 2007 with an entirely different interface.
Funkymonk
Apr 19, 01:37 PM
Couldn't Samsung just claim that the Galaxy S line is an evolution of the Samsung F700? Pretty strong argument for samsung.
Butters
Aug 11, 10:29 AM
I don't really want an iphone, I'd rather have an ipod with ichat/isight tbh
~Shard~
Jul 14, 03:57 PM
Since apple is part of the Blu Ray consortium wouldn't you think they will use blu ray only?
No, actually. Apple technically supports HD-DVD as well, since are a member of the DVD Forum, which backs HD-DVD. :cool:
No, actually. Apple technically supports HD-DVD as well, since are a member of the DVD Forum, which backs HD-DVD. :cool:
portishead
Apr 12, 12:28 PM
Why are you endorsing lack of improvement?
Nooooo not at all. You missed my next post with my feature requests. I'm just giving people a hard time about complaining that FCP isn't good enough. It has bugs, and it's quirky, but it mostly works.
Nooooo not at all. You missed my next post with my feature requests. I'm just giving people a hard time about complaining that FCP isn't good enough. It has bugs, and it's quirky, but it mostly works.
RichP
Jul 14, 03:59 PM
Ha, when I posted a while back that using Dell as a guide, Xeon processors were feasible, I was ignored, now it seems totally reasonable...
Anyway, I dont see why people make sure comparisons to Windows machines now that we are running Intel hardware. Apple is not building Windows machines, they are building Apple machines that run OSX. Benchmarks will be made, and at times Apple isnt going to win them. But its the OSX experience, and its stability as a platform, that is going to be a selling point, not the all out speed of the top-of-the-top Intel processor (the highest end PC processors always carry a heavy premium; its difficult to say that the yield of what we are shown as the highest available G5 is similar to the yields intel has for their high end)
I just have my fingers crossed that we see some cool "fast-OS switching" in Leopard with these machines.
Anyway, I dont see why people make sure comparisons to Windows machines now that we are running Intel hardware. Apple is not building Windows machines, they are building Apple machines that run OSX. Benchmarks will be made, and at times Apple isnt going to win them. But its the OSX experience, and its stability as a platform, that is going to be a selling point, not the all out speed of the top-of-the-top Intel processor (the highest end PC processors always carry a heavy premium; its difficult to say that the yield of what we are shown as the highest available G5 is similar to the yields intel has for their high end)
I just have my fingers crossed that we see some cool "fast-OS switching" in Leopard with these machines.
Multimedia
Aug 19, 12:33 PM
And I'm not convinced this is only an application problem. When I run Handbrake on the Quad G5 alone it uses just over two cores 203% @ about 100fps analysis (1st Pass of 2) speed. If I add a Toast encode while that is happening, Handbrake takes a huge hit down to below 150% @ 70-80 fps analysis while Toast can only use about 130% instead of more alone. So the Tiger OS X seems to have difficulty managing more than one multicore application's core usage allocation up to its maximum capability - IE Tiger is not so MultiCore Enabeled as it could be IE Leopard probably will be much moreso - let's hope that is one of its TOP SECRETS.
When I ran tests on the Mac Pro at the Apple Store last Saturday between Toast and/or Handbrake, their use of more cores alone and together was much better. Handbrake alone can analyze up to around 134fps while writing at about 107 fps using about 1.5-1.75 cores. So while not yet fully optimized for Mac Pro yet, it's already outperforming the Quad G5 significantly. Handbrake would appear to analyze files about 33% faster while writing them about 15% faster while using 1.5 to 1.75 cores. Quad G5 does analysis @ about 100fps and writes about 93 fps (2nd Pass) using up to about 2.2 cores.
Toast 7.1 UB uses Mac Pro cores much more than it does Quad cores - in the range of 280 - 310% IE about 3 cores compared to only about 1.5 cores on the Quad G5 as well as on the Dual Core G5. Unfortunately I didn't have encode times for each of the sample files I brought with me from the Quad so I don't know the real time how much faster that really amounts to. Running simultaneously on the Mac Pro, Toast would use over 2.5 cores while handbrake would use only one or less than one at best.
Together simultaneously on Mac Pro 2.66 it's
Toast/Handbrake
2.7 cores/1 core best
2.5 cores/.75 core worst
Handbrake during Toast is down to as few as 60fps but sometimes up to 100fps as well. Toast meanwhile is Still consuming up to almost 3 cores with Handbrake running at the same time. So Toast would appear to be much more optimized for the Mac Pro's MultiCores than it is for the Quad G5's Multicores. Same could be said for Handbrake - especially since it is not really fully Optimized for Mac Pro yet.
When I ran tests on the Mac Pro at the Apple Store last Saturday between Toast and/or Handbrake, their use of more cores alone and together was much better. Handbrake alone can analyze up to around 134fps while writing at about 107 fps using about 1.5-1.75 cores. So while not yet fully optimized for Mac Pro yet, it's already outperforming the Quad G5 significantly. Handbrake would appear to analyze files about 33% faster while writing them about 15% faster while using 1.5 to 1.75 cores. Quad G5 does analysis @ about 100fps and writes about 93 fps (2nd Pass) using up to about 2.2 cores.
Toast 7.1 UB uses Mac Pro cores much more than it does Quad cores - in the range of 280 - 310% IE about 3 cores compared to only about 1.5 cores on the Quad G5 as well as on the Dual Core G5. Unfortunately I didn't have encode times for each of the sample files I brought with me from the Quad so I don't know the real time how much faster that really amounts to. Running simultaneously on the Mac Pro, Toast would use over 2.5 cores while handbrake would use only one or less than one at best.
Together simultaneously on Mac Pro 2.66 it's
Toast/Handbrake
2.7 cores/1 core best
2.5 cores/.75 core worst
Handbrake during Toast is down to as few as 60fps but sometimes up to 100fps as well. Toast meanwhile is Still consuming up to almost 3 cores with Handbrake running at the same time. So Toast would appear to be much more optimized for the Mac Pro's MultiCores than it is for the Quad G5's Multicores. Same could be said for Handbrake - especially since it is not really fully Optimized for Mac Pro yet.
EagerDragon
Aug 25, 07:36 PM
Kind of a rude reply to someone who is just posting their experience with Apple.
Without criticism there would never be a reason to improve anything.
100% agree, there are manufactoring mistakes, the man should have a right to complain, lets not be rude. Sorry about that, people should not treat you like that.
Without criticism there would never be a reason to improve anything.
100% agree, there are manufactoring mistakes, the man should have a right to complain, lets not be rude. Sorry about that, people should not treat you like that.
jmgregory1
Mar 22, 04:01 PM
I can assure that doubling the 256MB of the first iPad is not enough for people that need a lot of multitask, like me.
I don't need to own an iPad 2.
The competitors have 1GB RAM, iPad 2 has 512MB.
It's simple: Apple is always behind hardware-wise because they like to priorize esthetics and appearance (besides the "so wonderful OS" ad). It's been this way for Macs, it seems to be the same way for iPads.
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
iPhone has started a market, competitors are improving it.
iPad has started a market, competitors are improving it.
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
People said that the iPhone was going to be the best phone out there, but the market is showing something different.
People say the iPad is the best tablet out there, but it seems that the market is going to show something different.
There are 2 sides: Apple fanboys and realistic people.
I like products, not brands.
This is a simple look at a complex process. Adding more ram may be good in a system that doesn't control app usage well, but it's something completely different when the system can control for app processes. If you have a product that works perfectly well with a certain spec, is there a need to add more of a certain thing? What benefit does it offer? Apple is a smart company - why build more cost into hardware if you can make your software make up any potential shortcomings in hardware?
Of course the competition has to market its products as being different in some way compared to Apple and convince you, the buying public, that it means something to have double this or less of that.
Frankly, I think these companies should be trying to come up with the next thing - instead of just trying to compete against the iPad - but they won't do that. They'll wait until Apple releases the next new thing and just copy that. It's pitiful really.
I don't need to own an iPad 2.
The competitors have 1GB RAM, iPad 2 has 512MB.
It's simple: Apple is always behind hardware-wise because they like to priorize esthetics and appearance (besides the "so wonderful OS" ad). It's been this way for Macs, it seems to be the same way for iPads.
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
iPhone has started a market, competitors are improving it.
iPad has started a market, competitors are improving it.
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
People said that the iPhone was going to be the best phone out there, but the market is showing something different.
People say the iPad is the best tablet out there, but it seems that the market is going to show something different.
There are 2 sides: Apple fanboys and realistic people.
I like products, not brands.
This is a simple look at a complex process. Adding more ram may be good in a system that doesn't control app usage well, but it's something completely different when the system can control for app processes. If you have a product that works perfectly well with a certain spec, is there a need to add more of a certain thing? What benefit does it offer? Apple is a smart company - why build more cost into hardware if you can make your software make up any potential shortcomings in hardware?
Of course the competition has to market its products as being different in some way compared to Apple and convince you, the buying public, that it means something to have double this or less of that.
Frankly, I think these companies should be trying to come up with the next thing - instead of just trying to compete against the iPad - but they won't do that. They'll wait until Apple releases the next new thing and just copy that. It's pitiful really.
No comments:
Post a Comment