zero2dash
Sep 18, 02:26 PM
The Thinkpad X40 I'm typing from Bluescreened on me no longer than three weeks ago. My crime? coming out of suspend mode.
Windows Crashes.
Believe it or not, Mac OS X can crash too. While it is prettier, it's still a crash.
Pretty funny reading the last few pages, thanks for the laughs.
I'll never forget at my old job (Kinkos) when our dual G4 running Panther had that system crash screen come up that is gray and basically says "your FUBAR'D" in like 8 languages...we were all stunned. :D Good times...never thought I'd see a bad crash like that in OSX. Or back in 2000 when our workstations were all running Windows 95b - I lost track of how many blue screens we'd get in a day. Man Win95 was garbage. :p Big for it's time - utter garbage now.
Windows Crashes.
Believe it or not, Mac OS X can crash too. While it is prettier, it's still a crash.
Pretty funny reading the last few pages, thanks for the laughs.
I'll never forget at my old job (Kinkos) when our dual G4 running Panther had that system crash screen come up that is gray and basically says "your FUBAR'D" in like 8 languages...we were all stunned. :D Good times...never thought I'd see a bad crash like that in OSX. Or back in 2000 when our workstations were all running Windows 95b - I lost track of how many blue screens we'd get in a day. Man Win95 was garbage. :p Big for it's time - utter garbage now.
lyzardking
Apr 6, 11:56 AM
I have something better than a MacBook Air. It's called an iPad 2.
Let me know when it can run CS5 (in a pinch) and I'm in
Until then, I'm waiting for a back-lit key board and a faster processor (yah, I know learn how to type, yada-yada. I've been at this long enough that if you could type you became a "typesetter")
Let me know when it can run CS5 (in a pinch) and I'm in
Until then, I'm waiting for a back-lit key board and a faster processor (yah, I know learn how to type, yada-yada. I've been at this long enough that if you could type you became a "typesetter")
heyjp
Nov 28, 11:06 PM
I think having Apple (which of course gets passed on to us users) paying a royalty per iPod is a no-brainer, let's do it!!! The logic is that people are playing illegal copies of Universal Studios songs, therefore, Apple should pay a royalty for every iPod to cover.
So, Apple, pay the royalty, which should logically imply that there is no need to EVER buy music from Universal since the royalty is now covered.
HEY UNIVERSAL... can't have your cake and eat it too.
jp
So, Apple, pay the royalty, which should logically imply that there is no need to EVER buy music from Universal since the royalty is now covered.
HEY UNIVERSAL... can't have your cake and eat it too.
jp
phytonix
Aug 27, 05:34 PM
canceled my MBP order
will wait until later
canceled order says shipment date of MBP is also Sept 1st
maybe they are really updating MBP
plz do...
will wait until later
canceled order says shipment date of MBP is also Sept 1st
maybe they are really updating MBP
plz do...
Tom B.
Jul 14, 02:54 PM
These look really cool, but I hope Apple have at least 1GB of RAM on these as standard, even on the cheapest model as this is supposed to be their most powerful computer. Actually they should have 1GB RAM as standard on all of their computers.
Yamcha
Apr 19, 02:41 PM
The First Commercial GUI
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5659/star1vg.gif
Xerox's Star workstation was the first commercial implementation of the graphical user interface. The Star was introduced in 1981 and was the inspiration for the Mac and all the other GUIs that followed.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7892/leopardpreviewdesktop4.jpghttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5733/xerox8010star.gif
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5659/star1vg.gif
Xerox's Star workstation was the first commercial implementation of the graphical user interface. The Star was introduced in 1981 and was the inspiration for the Mac and all the other GUIs that followed.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7892/leopardpreviewdesktop4.jpghttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5733/xerox8010star.gif
littleman23408
Nov 17, 08:49 AM
Sure hope this game finally decides to come out on the 24th, i'm ready to play this sucker all day thanksgiving.
takao
Dec 4, 09:01 PM
I started the Italian Tour thing earlier today. Half of it is fun but half is just annoying. Theres a race with a murcielago at night, which is awesome but the damn car spins out if you dont hold the wheel perfectly straight while you break or accelerate, making it very difficult to keep any reasonable speed. The Alfa Romeo in the first leg of the tour is almost as bad. But the Ferrari race at Monza? Easy as pie, i got gold on my first attempt without much fight from the AI.
hahe same here.. though i was close on the first alfa and rally challenge but the ferrari one: 1st corner you are first place and then you can just finish the race 'safe' but the lambo one... what a PITA .. it even spined out on me in a fast corner just because i went off the throttle slightly
i already took a mental note to avoid _that_ lambo for the challenge
hahe same here.. though i was close on the first alfa and rally challenge but the ferrari one: 1st corner you are first place and then you can just finish the race 'safe' but the lambo one... what a PITA .. it even spined out on me in a fast corner just because i went off the throttle slightly
i already took a mental note to avoid _that_ lambo for the challenge
chasemac
Aug 7, 04:40 PM
Is Leopard going to take advantage of the 64 bit Dual G5?
Mr. Anderson
Sep 13, 11:05 AM
meaning that unless you have a way of really stressing 8 cores, you may be better off with 4 faster cores in your Mac Pro
drool - i'll take 8 cores for my 3D rendering :D
I think I'll be selling my quad G5 next year for a 8 core Mac Pro.
D
drool - i'll take 8 cores for my 3D rendering :D
I think I'll be selling my quad G5 next year for a 8 core Mac Pro.
D
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.
peskaa
Apr 28, 06:15 AM
Wow, this thread and the ridiculous nature of this issue are hilarious. Seriously, you wonder why the US is going down the pan when the entire nation seems to get caught up in a fight over a bloody birth certificate?
ergle2
Sep 13, 03:02 PM
You totally missed my point. Even if an application uses only one thread at all times, that application is still a separate process from all of the other processes you have running. At any given time you'll have at least 30 something processes, even when no user-land applications are running. OS X will spread out those processes to try to utilize all the cores as much as possible.
In reality, there are probably not too many non-Apple applications which routinely use 8 threads or more. In the near future I expect all applications to use at least 2-3 threads, even the most simple ones.
Sure, but all those background processes take next to no time to execute -- the extra latency of having more processors will probably slow things down far more than you gain from having up to 8 of those 30 be able to run at any one time.
I'm not saying there's no need for 8 cores -- markets such as databases, media production, rendering, etc. can already make use of that kind of power.
Regular desktops, not so much.
Many simple apps are already mutithreadedto some dgree, but it's to make them non-blocking rather than to spread processor load. If you look at Windows, you'll find a very high number of threads in even just a media player, but some of it's just there to repaint the GUI etc.
In reality, there are probably not too many non-Apple applications which routinely use 8 threads or more. In the near future I expect all applications to use at least 2-3 threads, even the most simple ones.
Sure, but all those background processes take next to no time to execute -- the extra latency of having more processors will probably slow things down far more than you gain from having up to 8 of those 30 be able to run at any one time.
I'm not saying there's no need for 8 cores -- markets such as databases, media production, rendering, etc. can already make use of that kind of power.
Regular desktops, not so much.
Many simple apps are already mutithreadedto some dgree, but it's to make them non-blocking rather than to spread processor load. If you look at Windows, you'll find a very high number of threads in even just a media player, but some of it's just there to repaint the GUI etc.
chasemac
Aug 7, 06:07 PM
I keep reading stuff like this. I don't think Time Machine works with the reagular harddrive. You have to use it with an external drive.
Yes, I was wondering the same because it wouldn't make much sense would it.:)
Yes, I was wondering the same because it wouldn't make much sense would it.:)
iMrNiceGuy0023
Jun 20, 04:28 PM
you might be better off at a mall RadioShack than a stand alone store....they tend to get more inventory of any product
AppleKrate
Sep 19, 10:49 AM
The MacBookPro is still too new a release to have the major type of changes you and others are hoping for. All you're going to get for the next year or two is speed bumps and maybe an upgrade in HD capacity, Graphics card, or Optical Drive (Blue-Ray or HD-DVD)
Basically I see two types of users in here pleading for the newer chips: the average users who just "like the idea of fast" when it really does them no good, and the professionals who are consistantly holding out for something better. The professionals are few and far between.
Please tell me what is majorly new about the current MacBook Pro besides an intel chip :confused: (and the name of course :rolleyes: )
PS how about an amateur professional? If not, maybe a professional amateur?
Basically I see two types of users in here pleading for the newer chips: the average users who just "like the idea of fast" when it really does them no good, and the professionals who are consistantly holding out for something better. The professionals are few and far between.
Please tell me what is majorly new about the current MacBook Pro besides an intel chip :confused: (and the name of course :rolleyes: )
PS how about an amateur professional? If not, maybe a professional amateur?
Full of Win
Apr 27, 08:44 AM
It doesn't keep a log of the "location" but which WiFi spots you have been on. Also, the database is not easily accessible. But really, don't complain if you enabled Location Services...
1. Keeping a logic identifiable towers and hot spots is, by proxy, keeping a log of my whereabouts.
2. This tag and track was done with location services OFF, per the WSJ.
1. Keeping a logic identifiable towers and hot spots is, by proxy, keeping a log of my whereabouts.
2. This tag and track was done with location services OFF, per the WSJ.
zero2dash
Sep 18, 01:44 PM
Plenty of people ran NT on their desktops.
Admission of your mistakes is a good step in becoming a better person.
Key word being DESKTOPS.
MP machines were server based long before they were included in desktops. I'd like to see where people had dual Xeon based DESKTOPS 'cause I've never seen it. It's not impossible but it's also not a good cost-based answer either. :p
The server/desktop division with Windows - as with OS X - is one of marketing, not software. Windows "Workstation" and Windows "Server" use the same codebase.
I never said otherwise.
The hardware they run on is where it differentiates.
Most people/corporations run server-based OS on servers and workstation-based OS on desktops (or "workstations" in the business world). It's not impossible to run a server OS on a desktop or a workstation OS on a server but it is incredibly stupid.
Well, if you can't find evidence of Windows running on well on machine with >2 processors, or of the significant low-level changes Microsoft have made to ensure it does, you aren't looking very hard.
Bad dual core support? Citations please. I think this is a case where a Mac fan is simply speaking out of ignorance of their "enemy" platform.
I erronously bundled in "dual core" with "sketchy 64-bit support". Don't know why. From what I hear, 64-bit support in XP64 is sketchy because of device driver issues (and drivers not being natively 64-bit). I don't have any true 'dual core' systems myself but my P4 3.0C HT works fine in XP Pro. I apologize for lumping in "dual core" in.
Similarly, if you're one of the "Vista is just XP with a fancy skin" crowd, you've obviously not done much research. The changes in Vista are on par with the scale of changes Apple made to NeXT to get OS X.
User Account Protection is a big change. I've seen the list of "new features" and it doesn't do anything for me. UAP is nice...it's just really late. I'm sure there's changes "under the hood" like the ones implemented in XP sp2 to prevent buffer/stack overflows, etc. and I'm sure that's what you're referring to.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
So - are you inferring that Windows 2000 or Windows XP never blue screen? Because (if you are) that's a load of crap. I've seen blue screens in both OS's. Granted it's usually tied to hardware only, but it still happens. I've had an external USB drive blue screen in XP every time I turned it on, tried on 3 XP computers. Hardware fault, no doubt. Lately my HP Laptop dvd drive has been causing XP Pro to blue screen every other time I insert a dvd-r. Again - hardware fault.
Otherwise are both OS's stable? Damn straight. But problems do occur and I hope you're not suggesting otherwise. No OS is without its flaws.
Admission of your mistakes is a good step in becoming a better person.
Key word being DESKTOPS.
MP machines were server based long before they were included in desktops. I'd like to see where people had dual Xeon based DESKTOPS 'cause I've never seen it. It's not impossible but it's also not a good cost-based answer either. :p
The server/desktop division with Windows - as with OS X - is one of marketing, not software. Windows "Workstation" and Windows "Server" use the same codebase.
I never said otherwise.
The hardware they run on is where it differentiates.
Most people/corporations run server-based OS on servers and workstation-based OS on desktops (or "workstations" in the business world). It's not impossible to run a server OS on a desktop or a workstation OS on a server but it is incredibly stupid.
Well, if you can't find evidence of Windows running on well on machine with >2 processors, or of the significant low-level changes Microsoft have made to ensure it does, you aren't looking very hard.
Bad dual core support? Citations please. I think this is a case where a Mac fan is simply speaking out of ignorance of their "enemy" platform.
I erronously bundled in "dual core" with "sketchy 64-bit support". Don't know why. From what I hear, 64-bit support in XP64 is sketchy because of device driver issues (and drivers not being natively 64-bit). I don't have any true 'dual core' systems myself but my P4 3.0C HT works fine in XP Pro. I apologize for lumping in "dual core" in.
Similarly, if you're one of the "Vista is just XP with a fancy skin" crowd, you've obviously not done much research. The changes in Vista are on par with the scale of changes Apple made to NeXT to get OS X.
User Account Protection is a big change. I've seen the list of "new features" and it doesn't do anything for me. UAP is nice...it's just really late. I'm sure there's changes "under the hood" like the ones implemented in XP sp2 to prevent buffer/stack overflows, etc. and I'm sure that's what you're referring to.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
So - are you inferring that Windows 2000 or Windows XP never blue screen? Because (if you are) that's a load of crap. I've seen blue screens in both OS's. Granted it's usually tied to hardware only, but it still happens. I've had an external USB drive blue screen in XP every time I turned it on, tried on 3 XP computers. Hardware fault, no doubt. Lately my HP Laptop dvd drive has been causing XP Pro to blue screen every other time I insert a dvd-r. Again - hardware fault.
Otherwise are both OS's stable? Damn straight. But problems do occur and I hope you're not suggesting otherwise. No OS is without its flaws.
toddybody
Apr 6, 11:15 AM
BTW: Im so glad to have some MAC rumors to talk about...the 24/7 iOS fest gets tiresome :rolleyes:
gnasher729
Aug 17, 05:32 AM
They are comparing a 2 generations old G5 (Dual 2,5) versus a new Intel (Quad 2,6) which is not even the fastest out there. What kind of comparison is that?
If you want to know what is the fastest Mac, the comparison is no good. If you want to know whether you should upgrade your machine, the comparison makes a lot of sense. First, the 2.66 GHz Quad has the best price/performance ratio. If you start with the 2.0 GHz, you get 666 MHz more for $300, then you get another 333 MHz for a mere $800. So if you want to upgrade, the 2.66 is _the_ machine to buy. Second, there will be much less difference between a Quad G5 and a Quad Xeon. On performance critical Rosetta applications (like Photoshop) the Quad G5 will be stronger. In that case, it doesn't matter how much stronger - you won't upgrade, that is all that matters. But if you have a dual G5, then the question whether to upgrade or not is really interesting.
And we need to know whether apps use four cores or not. In many cases, changing from two threads to four threads is very easy (that is if all the threads to the same work; it is much harder if the threads do different work), but the app uses only two threads because most machines had only two CPUs. As an example, early versions of Handbrake didn't gain anything from Quad G5s; the CPUs were 50% idle all the time. People complained, and it was changed. The same thing will happen again, especially since _all_ Mac Pros have four cores.
If you want to know what is the fastest Mac, the comparison is no good. If you want to know whether you should upgrade your machine, the comparison makes a lot of sense. First, the 2.66 GHz Quad has the best price/performance ratio. If you start with the 2.0 GHz, you get 666 MHz more for $300, then you get another 333 MHz for a mere $800. So if you want to upgrade, the 2.66 is _the_ machine to buy. Second, there will be much less difference between a Quad G5 and a Quad Xeon. On performance critical Rosetta applications (like Photoshop) the Quad G5 will be stronger. In that case, it doesn't matter how much stronger - you won't upgrade, that is all that matters. But if you have a dual G5, then the question whether to upgrade or not is really interesting.
And we need to know whether apps use four cores or not. In many cases, changing from two threads to four threads is very easy (that is if all the threads to the same work; it is much harder if the threads do different work), but the app uses only two threads because most machines had only two CPUs. As an example, early versions of Handbrake didn't gain anything from Quad G5s; the CPUs were 50% idle all the time. People complained, and it was changed. The same thing will happen again, especially since _all_ Mac Pros have four cores.
Huntn
Mar 18, 08:59 PM
Back in Ron Paul warned us about Barack Obama and the fact that his foreign policy would almost certainly essentially mirror that of the Democrats and Neo-Cons for the past 60 years.
I am very unhappy that Obama did not get us out of a state of War. Which pacifist do you plan on voting for this next time around?
I am very unhappy that Obama did not get us out of a state of War. Which pacifist do you plan on voting for this next time around?
bedifferent
Apr 11, 11:31 AM
Why wait (and risk them not living up to your expectation)? Just pretend Apple dumbed it down now and start your move now - like that's the only thing "keeping" you on the Mac platform :rolleyes:
Maybe there is, or maybe this is the final straw given Apple's trend in dropping professional grade products. Either way, his decision, no need for the :rolleyes:. Thought we were all adults here. :)
Maybe there is, or maybe this is the final straw given Apple's trend in dropping professional grade products. Either way, his decision, no need for the :rolleyes:. Thought we were all adults here. :)
ryanx27
Aug 27, 10:37 AM
The 1.83 & 2.00GHz for iMacs (if they use merom) and MacBooks and the 2.16 and 2.33 for the 15 & 17 MBPs respectively. Its that simple.
Yeah, I agree. I don't see MacBooks breaking 2.00, but I can def. see a base MBP with a 2.13 and a premium MBP with a 2.33 ... (in fact, I can see it on my desk in 3 weeks :D )
So obviously Merom is coming to the MBP -- what I really want to know is if it will get a better video card and maybe some neat little form factor improvements....:rolleyes:
Yeah, I agree. I don't see MacBooks breaking 2.00, but I can def. see a base MBP with a 2.13 and a premium MBP with a 2.33 ... (in fact, I can see it on my desk in 3 weeks :D )
So obviously Merom is coming to the MBP -- what I really want to know is if it will get a better video card and maybe some neat little form factor improvements....:rolleyes:
gorgeousninja
Apr 20, 05:54 AM
WRONG! They weren't invented at Apple's Cupertino HQ, they were invented back in Palo Alto (Xerox PARC).
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
You're really pushing this aren't you? So what exactly is your point that has a significant relevance to the main topic? ...None, that's what.
Just because 30 years ago Apple took an idea initially developed by Xerox, but then improved upon it and subsequently released to the mass market a product that most people acknowledge as being the first home computer, has absolutely no bearing on the fact that Samsung have blatantly copied Apple's design.
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
You're really pushing this aren't you? So what exactly is your point that has a significant relevance to the main topic? ...None, that's what.
Just because 30 years ago Apple took an idea initially developed by Xerox, but then improved upon it and subsequently released to the mass market a product that most people acknowledge as being the first home computer, has absolutely no bearing on the fact that Samsung have blatantly copied Apple's design.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario