Eraserhead
Mar 1, 04:27 PM
Fascinating as this insight into a mediaeval mind is, please do remember to use the multi-quote.
http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/buttons/multiquote_off.gif
Well it certainly isn't the Renaissance mind, as Leonardo and Michelangelo were pretty clearly raving homosexuals.
http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/buttons/multiquote_off.gif
Well it certainly isn't the Renaissance mind, as Leonardo and Michelangelo were pretty clearly raving homosexuals.
technicolor
Sep 19, 10:05 PM
Speaking personally, I don't see a problem with it.
They've always had updates roughly every 3-6 months, of one kind or another.
Yeah and they werent in Macs, so I didnt care.
They've always had updates roughly every 3-6 months, of one kind or another.
Yeah and they werent in Macs, so I didnt care.
Snowy_River
Jul 27, 02:55 PM
Pretty cool, but it needs a real name, MAC won't cut it. Maybe Mac Express?
And it wouldn't have FW800 or a second optical slot. Probably a second HD slot instead. And I'd guess it would be more of a pizza box enclosure, but that's wild speculation. Your price is probably way too low, too.
I'm not sure why you're saying this price is way too low. The specs, so far as I can see, are quite similar to the current bottom-end iMac, which has an integrated screen, and it's price is only $300 more. It seems to me that this price is actually about right.
Also, I think that the name 'Mac' is a distinct possibility. Not saying I like it (or that I don't), or that it isn't simplistic, but I think that it's not unreasonable. FWIW, 'Mac Express' is nice, too, but I don't see Apple jumping on a name like that as quickly.
And it wouldn't have FW800 or a second optical slot. Probably a second HD slot instead. And I'd guess it would be more of a pizza box enclosure, but that's wild speculation. Your price is probably way too low, too.
I'm not sure why you're saying this price is way too low. The specs, so far as I can see, are quite similar to the current bottom-end iMac, which has an integrated screen, and it's price is only $300 more. It seems to me that this price is actually about right.
Also, I think that the name 'Mac' is a distinct possibility. Not saying I like it (or that I don't), or that it isn't simplistic, but I think that it's not unreasonable. FWIW, 'Mac Express' is nice, too, but I don't see Apple jumping on a name like that as quickly.
mkrishnan
Aug 7, 03:38 PM
I'm surprised res-independent UI was not discussed, but Apple has already said (http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/GraphicsImaging/ResolutionIndependentUI.html) that is coming, so maybe it's just not polished enough to bother showing yet. (Or maybe it's better to show when new displays come out? Today's new low prices on Cinema Displays might hint at new displays to come later.)
I am not entirely clear on what all CoreAnimation does and does not do, but I'm wondering if it and RIUI are not related at some level.... some of its feature set sounds like exactly what one would need to make the RIUI easy to implement.... We'll have to wait and see.
I voted Time Machine. I'm not even sure I'd really use it. But it's a neat idea, and the implementation looks to be nothing less than stunning. When I first saw it, I too thought system restore, but it's clearly substantially more sophisticated and (what a shock) oriented at enhancing your experience doing actual stuff with your computer, rather than at undoing the mess Windows updaters make when they fail to do what they're supposed to. :D
To me overall it seems like I'll be excited to get my next Mac with Leopard pre-installed but I will not rush out to purchase a copy....
I am not entirely clear on what all CoreAnimation does and does not do, but I'm wondering if it and RIUI are not related at some level.... some of its feature set sounds like exactly what one would need to make the RIUI easy to implement.... We'll have to wait and see.
I voted Time Machine. I'm not even sure I'd really use it. But it's a neat idea, and the implementation looks to be nothing less than stunning. When I first saw it, I too thought system restore, but it's clearly substantially more sophisticated and (what a shock) oriented at enhancing your experience doing actual stuff with your computer, rather than at undoing the mess Windows updaters make when they fail to do what they're supposed to. :D
To me overall it seems like I'll be excited to get my next Mac with Leopard pre-installed but I will not rush out to purchase a copy....
RebootD
Apr 10, 01:29 AM
Enough Nostradamusesque mysticism and lets get to the real demo already! (Impatient) :D
guzhogi
Jul 15, 09:58 AM
I kind of miss the B&W G3 and the Power Mac G4's enclusure where all you needed to do to open it was lift the latch and open it and �voila! All the components right there! W/ the G5/ you have to take off the side and isn't there a clear side panel you have to take off, too?
mdntcallr
Sep 19, 09:54 AM
APPLE I NEED A NEW MACBOOK PRO. I NEED FIREWIRE 800, I NEED A DL SuperDrive, i'd like MEMROM. If you had to release a half-assed Prosumer laptop in the first place to start your transition for the love of god PLEASE update it now. Its been a LONG time since we've seen any updates. Apple is now competing in INTEL land, were they need to keep their laptops current. Release the laptops (notebooks in your case as you like to call them) i'll place the order and wait for them to ship. PLEASE.!
mike
umm, how about more than a simple basic update.
We need:
Firewire 800
Superdrive DL w/ OPTION FOR BLU-RAY!!!
Nvidia 7800 or 7900 option!! we need option for best vid card!! upgrade to 512 mb vram
and..... Magsafe Airplane/Auto POWER ADAPTER!!
mike
umm, how about more than a simple basic update.
We need:
Firewire 800
Superdrive DL w/ OPTION FOR BLU-RAY!!!
Nvidia 7800 or 7900 option!! we need option for best vid card!! upgrade to 512 mb vram
and..... Magsafe Airplane/Auto POWER ADAPTER!!
iphone3gs16gb
Mar 22, 10:25 AM
deleted
layte
Mar 31, 03:58 PM
First, I have a Dell Streak. Wanted to see what the fuss was about. Took a year for the official Froyo release to appear. Yeah, fragmentation exists.
(I appreciate Android on the Streak, but GOOD GOD does it feel like a laggy piece of software compared to my iPhone and iPad. It has widgets and tons of convenient apps for pirating software or games (no... I own ALL those ROMS)... but I digress.)
So, Android unifies. Google forces handset/tablet manufacturers to adopt a stock OS interface. How will they differentiate themselves? What incentive, beyond a free OS, will there be to creating "phone B" that looks just like "phone A". This is where Google will shoot itself in the foot. The less the carriers and handset manufacturers can customize, the less incentive they have to launch on Android. Heck, just emulate Android if you want the apps, right RIM?
Weren't there waves a few weeks about about Motorola wanting its own OS? I'd want to control my own destiny. This is creating a "walled garden" (Andy as caretaker) for the device manufacturers/carriers, and they're the ones that Google needs to be pushing the platform.
The thing is, if handset manufacturers want to crap up a handset with their own gunk they are free to do so still. They will have to wait longer than has been the case (is there an echo in here?) but it is still possible. This isn't Google completely shutting off access, just them making things a bit harder (some will think this is a good thing, some wont).
Perhaps they can differentiate with hardware, or custom applications (just not anything that messes with the base OS by the looks of things). Horrible skins need to die a death, even hardcore fandroids would agree with that.
(I appreciate Android on the Streak, but GOOD GOD does it feel like a laggy piece of software compared to my iPhone and iPad. It has widgets and tons of convenient apps for pirating software or games (no... I own ALL those ROMS)... but I digress.)
So, Android unifies. Google forces handset/tablet manufacturers to adopt a stock OS interface. How will they differentiate themselves? What incentive, beyond a free OS, will there be to creating "phone B" that looks just like "phone A". This is where Google will shoot itself in the foot. The less the carriers and handset manufacturers can customize, the less incentive they have to launch on Android. Heck, just emulate Android if you want the apps, right RIM?
Weren't there waves a few weeks about about Motorola wanting its own OS? I'd want to control my own destiny. This is creating a "walled garden" (Andy as caretaker) for the device manufacturers/carriers, and they're the ones that Google needs to be pushing the platform.
The thing is, if handset manufacturers want to crap up a handset with their own gunk they are free to do so still. They will have to wait longer than has been the case (is there an echo in here?) but it is still possible. This isn't Google completely shutting off access, just them making things a bit harder (some will think this is a good thing, some wont).
Perhaps they can differentiate with hardware, or custom applications (just not anything that messes with the base OS by the looks of things). Horrible skins need to die a death, even hardcore fandroids would agree with that.
SuperCachetes
Mar 1, 04:36 PM
But they are treated equal, any gay man can marry a woman and any lesbian woman can marry a man just as any heterosexual man can marry a woman and any heterosexual woman can marry a man
And yet, not. :rolleyes:
Not being able to marry the human being you are attracted to, love, and want to spend the rest of your life with? Doesn't sound too equal to me.
Glad most of the other civil rights issues are taken care of - you would be the one claiming "But people in a wheelchair are treated equally! They have every right to use the same stairs as ambulatory people!" Good grief.
And yet, not. :rolleyes:
Not being able to marry the human being you are attracted to, love, and want to spend the rest of your life with? Doesn't sound too equal to me.
Glad most of the other civil rights issues are taken care of - you would be the one claiming "But people in a wheelchair are treated equally! They have every right to use the same stairs as ambulatory people!" Good grief.
RedTomato
Jul 20, 11:35 AM
Definitely need 8 cores me.
One for running whatever program I'm working on.
One for running the OS X interface, with Core Image, and bells and whistles and brass knobs and shiny candy.
One for running Azerus or LimeWire or one of these Bittorrent clients that all seem to be in Java on the mac, and all slow my machine to a crawl..
One for running Firefox and rendering these java / flash adverts that seem to slow my machine to a crawl.
One for doing the video rendering that still slows my machine to a crawl for hours and hours.
One for running the Windows XP virtualisation machine in a window on my desktop that seemed to slow my machine to a crawl last time I tried it.
Round Face Hairstyle for Women
Short Haircuts For Round Faces
short feminine hair styles
Very short women#39;s hairstyles
short haircuts for women
short haircuts for women
short haircuts for round
short hairstyles for round
One for running whatever program I'm working on.
One for running the OS X interface, with Core Image, and bells and whistles and brass knobs and shiny candy.
One for running Azerus or LimeWire or one of these Bittorrent clients that all seem to be in Java on the mac, and all slow my machine to a crawl..
One for running Firefox and rendering these java / flash adverts that seem to slow my machine to a crawl.
One for doing the video rendering that still slows my machine to a crawl for hours and hours.
One for running the Windows XP virtualisation machine in a window on my desktop that seemed to slow my machine to a crawl last time I tried it.
rhett7660
Apr 5, 05:19 PM
Problem is, its still Final Cut and will still suck at managing media.
And. You don't know they may have re-done a good chunk of the product to where you have better media managing and it might not even look like FCP as we know it. That of course could be a bad thing or a good thing.
And. You don't know they may have re-done a good chunk of the product to where you have better media managing and it might not even look like FCP as we know it. That of course could be a bad thing or a good thing.
cmaier
Apr 20, 12:10 PM
Then it sure doesn't apply to all models then if the trade dress claim is an AND'd combination. If the trade dress claim only applicable to certain models in the ones listed in the complaint ?
The trade dress claims do not list specific models.
Specific models ARE shown for illustration purposes in the background portion of the document, however.
The trade dress claims do not list specific models.
Specific models ARE shown for illustration purposes in the background portion of the document, however.
playaj82
Aug 8, 07:38 AM
I know a lot of people are excited about Time Machine, but I was kind of worried last night when I showed it to one of my friends.
Unlike Expose, Fast User Switching, iTunes, Dashboard, etc... that have immediate impact and understanding as to why the features are so neat, Time Machine is actually rather complicated.
I explained and showed it to my friend, and she said, "so what, when I delete something it stays on the hard drive anyways"
All of us here obviously understand the significance of this program, but does anybody else think this will be difficult to market to the "average" user.
Unlike Expose, Fast User Switching, iTunes, Dashboard, etc... that have immediate impact and understanding as to why the features are so neat, Time Machine is actually rather complicated.
I explained and showed it to my friend, and she said, "so what, when I delete something it stays on the hard drive anyways"
All of us here obviously understand the significance of this program, but does anybody else think this will be difficult to market to the "average" user.
Mattie Num Nums
Mar 31, 02:47 PM
If Apple FAD goes away, where will Google copy from next?
You are delusional if you think Google is not building upon the Apple FAD.
What the heck are you talking about. Google is building upon the technology. Apple did a great job advancing the technology which pushed everyone else to do the same. Its called competition its been happening for years and in every industry.
You are delusional if you think Google is not building upon the Apple FAD.
What the heck are you talking about. Google is building upon the technology. Apple did a great job advancing the technology which pushed everyone else to do the same. Its called competition its been happening for years and in every industry.
littleman23408
Dec 4, 04:59 PM
A-spec level 19. Haven't played it for a week now, maybe I should play this weekend and get it to 25.
I think I got mine up to 16 or 17 last night. Finished the second license with all gold, started a bspec driver, and did some other things.
yep im pretty sure thats what i saw! pretty cool this game
my PSN name is psychofetus
Awesome, I sent you a friend request. Edit: I received your friend request.
I think I got mine up to 16 or 17 last night. Finished the second license with all gold, started a bspec driver, and did some other things.
yep im pretty sure thats what i saw! pretty cool this game
my PSN name is psychofetus
Awesome, I sent you a friend request. Edit: I received your friend request.
Metatron
Nov 28, 11:38 PM
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
You my friend, sound like a socialist...
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
You my friend, sound like a socialist...
skunk
Feb 28, 07:12 PM
2) okay, they can pretend to get marriedNo, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
boncellis
Apr 6, 02:11 PM
I think it's mostly about the price. I, for one, can't see myself not buying the original (iPad) when the competition is the same price. When there are more commoditized components then Android tablets will have a more enticing pricepoint and consumers will be more likely to buy them.
fluidinclusion
Aug 11, 06:17 PM
These rumors surrounding the iPhone have been around for quite a while now, so I sure hope it becomes reality sooner rather than later. Who knows, if it�s really good I may actually buy my first cell phone ever. :cool:
I have not yet bought a cell phone. This summer it would have been useful, but I've been waiting for Apple (I know it's not the best idea with no real timeline).
The sooner it's released, the more likely the phone I buy will be from Apple.
I have not yet bought a cell phone. This summer it would have been useful, but I've been waiting for Apple (I know it's not the best idea with no real timeline).
The sooner it's released, the more likely the phone I buy will be from Apple.
icloud
Aug 7, 03:39 PM
Lots of things changed from the first views of tiger to the creature it is today. I think their a lot more hiding in leopard then we found out today
P.s. I hope to god a new finder and the death of brushed metal is one of those "secrets"
P.s. I hope to god a new finder and the death of brushed metal is one of those "secrets"
shamino
Jul 21, 10:07 AM
With all these new technologies with 4, 8 and eventually 24-core capacities (some time in the not too distant future) all running at 64-bit, we musn't forget that software also has tobe developed for these machienes in order to get the most out of the hardware. At the moment we aren't even maximising core-duo, let alone a quad core and all the rest!!!!
It really depends on your application.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use.
If you get away from the desktop and look to the server market, however, the picture changes. A web server may only be running one copy of Apache, but it may create a thread for every simultaneous connection. If you have 8 cores, then you can handle 8 times as many connections as a 1-core system can (assuming sufficient memory and I/O bandwidth, of course.) Ditto for database, transaction, and all kinds of other servers. More cores means more simultaneous connections without performance degradation.
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.
It really depends on your application.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use.
If you get away from the desktop and look to the server market, however, the picture changes. A web server may only be running one copy of Apache, but it may create a thread for every simultaneous connection. If you have 8 cores, then you can handle 8 times as many connections as a 1-core system can (assuming sufficient memory and I/O bandwidth, of course.) Ditto for database, transaction, and all kinds of other servers. More cores means more simultaneous connections without performance degradation.
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.
SkyStudios
Apr 25, 04:41 PM
|
daneoni
Aug 27, 03:40 PM
Can someone tell me in what Santa Rosa is all about and how much of a difference it is (as far as Merom is concerned) ??:)
Its the next mobile chipset. Sufficive to say, you get a faster bus 800 from 667MHz and support for 802.11n as well some other goodies
Its the next mobile chipset. Sufficive to say, you get a faster bus 800 from 667MHz and support for 802.11n as well some other goodies
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario