MacAddict1978
Mar 26, 01:43 AM
Since the release of Leopard, the subsequent releases haven't had the wow factor of before.
Just what I think anyway.
Agreed, and while I'm excited to see this one won't be delayed and Summer might not = September for Apple... I'm kinda bummed. I was hoping there were some sweet things not yet seen. Revamped interface, secret cool feature that would make me ache to have this one day 1... and guess not so much.
I'll still buy in on day 2 though. hehe
Just what I think anyway.
Agreed, and while I'm excited to see this one won't be delayed and Summer might not = September for Apple... I'm kinda bummed. I was hoping there were some sweet things not yet seen. Revamped interface, secret cool feature that would make me ache to have this one day 1... and guess not so much.
I'll still buy in on day 2 though. hehe
Notaclone
Apr 27, 09:35 AM
Am I the only person disappointed to find my iPhone is NOT tracking me? I download the App David Pogue posted on NYT and it didn't work. My iPhone's too old! I wish the damn thing would just die already, but since every Mac I've bought since 1989* still works, what are the odds? Someone steal my iPhone, PLEASE!
*1985's Mac had a coca-cola spilled in it. That can destroy anything.
*1985's Mac had a coca-cola spilled in it. That can destroy anything.
patrick0brien
Jul 20, 12:28 PM
There might be rare exceptions in the professinal area and of course it makes lots of sense for a server, but for a single user machine?
-satty
I just kicked of a 6450 frame render on Gabriel (see specs below). According to the average frame time, it'll take until August 4th to complete.
I'd reeeeeally like this alleged machine.
-satty
I just kicked of a 6450 frame render on Gabriel (see specs below). According to the average frame time, it'll take until August 4th to complete.
I'd reeeeeally like this alleged machine.
amin
Aug 22, 07:33 PM
Current generation AMD Opterons still clearly outscale Woodcrest in real-world memory bandwidth with only two cores.
Do you have a reference showing that this translates to better performance in real-world application tests in a head to head competition?
Do you have a reference showing that this translates to better performance in real-world application tests in a head to head competition?
milo
Jul 27, 03:39 PM
It's always a little alarming when a post starts "sorry if I missed it but..."
This is a positively thoughtless remark. No one's cheering the MHz myth on, in fact, Intel itself has abandoned the concept. Until the 3Ghz woodies get dropped in a MacPro, the 2.7 GHZ G5 will still be the fastest chip ever put in a Macintosh. I have a dual core Pentium D in a bastard Mac at the house, it runs at 3.8 GHz. I'm pretty sure that even it is slower in a lot of areas than these Core 2's. So no, you're absolutely wrong, the MHz myth is all but dead.
The 2.7 G5 will be the highest clocked chip in a mac for a while, but probably not the fastest. In a number of benchmarks, Yonah has already beaten dual G5's, the conroes and woodrests will likely widen the gap even more.
This is a positively thoughtless remark. No one's cheering the MHz myth on, in fact, Intel itself has abandoned the concept. Until the 3Ghz woodies get dropped in a MacPro, the 2.7 GHZ G5 will still be the fastest chip ever put in a Macintosh. I have a dual core Pentium D in a bastard Mac at the house, it runs at 3.8 GHz. I'm pretty sure that even it is slower in a lot of areas than these Core 2's. So no, you're absolutely wrong, the MHz myth is all but dead.
The 2.7 G5 will be the highest clocked chip in a mac for a while, but probably not the fastest. In a number of benchmarks, Yonah has already beaten dual G5's, the conroes and woodrests will likely widen the gap even more.
toddybody
Apr 6, 11:25 AM
I bet you that you'll never see a iPad with screen resolution like 2048x1536, it's a ****ing nightmare to iOS developers. You don't understand that it's ****ing crazy, iOS interface like MacOS X interface is not scalable. Apple have to change the whole GUI before making this step forward.
what did Apple do with the iP4? Oh wait...
As far as Devs are concerned, they 2x the res for their ease. Sorry, its not that "****ing crazy". Oh, and before someone says "well theres not going to be a mobile GPU that could handle that res"; not true, even now theres some great emerging technologies that have handled concurrent instances of 1080p (like 10 displays)...much less whats going to be available in 2012(if we survive the world ending:) Furthermore, native apps like iBooks/iTunes/etc dont require heavy processing to display hi res. Sorry man, youre wrong.
PS: Take it easy on the *
what did Apple do with the iP4? Oh wait...
As far as Devs are concerned, they 2x the res for their ease. Sorry, its not that "****ing crazy". Oh, and before someone says "well theres not going to be a mobile GPU that could handle that res"; not true, even now theres some great emerging technologies that have handled concurrent instances of 1080p (like 10 displays)...much less whats going to be available in 2012(if we survive the world ending:) Furthermore, native apps like iBooks/iTunes/etc dont require heavy processing to display hi res. Sorry man, youre wrong.
PS: Take it easy on the *
Consultant
Apr 11, 11:36 AM
We'll see in a few months.
Apple has never been one to react to competition in the recent years. They seem to do what they think is best and let others follow them.
I think they know that if they bring out the best one when it is released, they will sell as many as they can make for a long time.
Agree.
Apple has never been one to react to competition in the recent years. They seem to do what they think is best and let others follow them.
I think they know that if they bring out the best one when it is released, they will sell as many as they can make for a long time.
Agree.
LagunaSol
Apr 6, 05:07 PM
It never ceases to amaze me at how many Android users have to flock to a site called "MacRumors" because they feel then need to lead us poor blinded Apple "fanboys" to the bright shining city on a hill that is Android paradise.
Android has taken fanboyism to epic new proportions. You can't go anywhere on the Web these days without the Android Brigade screaming at you about how awesome, "free" and "open" it is and how you should get on board. Just post the comment "ANDROID FTW!!!" on Engadget and watch the upvotes ensue. And while they're celebrating their epic market share gains, they are referring to iOS users as "sheep." Riiiight.
I thought the Apple vs Microsoft holy war was bad (and we have at least one pro MS astroturfer on this Apple-oriented site), but Google seriously has a mindlock on some of these people. (I'm not referring to all Android users, mind you, only the ranting/raving types (which seem to be the majority these days).
Android has taken fanboyism to epic new proportions. You can't go anywhere on the Web these days without the Android Brigade screaming at you about how awesome, "free" and "open" it is and how you should get on board. Just post the comment "ANDROID FTW!!!" on Engadget and watch the upvotes ensue. And while they're celebrating their epic market share gains, they are referring to iOS users as "sheep." Riiiight.
I thought the Apple vs Microsoft holy war was bad (and we have at least one pro MS astroturfer on this Apple-oriented site), but Google seriously has a mindlock on some of these people. (I'm not referring to all Android users, mind you, only the ranting/raving types (which seem to be the majority these days).
Riemann Zeta
Apr 27, 09:42 AM
Whether or not the behavior of this cache was in fact "a bug", I think the update that flushes the cache files when Location Services is disabled will settle the issue.
BoyBach
Aug 6, 03:31 PM
Is that real? PLEASE tell me that is real! :D Priceless.
According to AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1942) there's another banner that reads "Mac OS X Leopard -- Hasta la Vista, Vista."
According to AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1942) there's another banner that reads "Mac OS X Leopard -- Hasta la Vista, Vista."
NightFox
Apr 19, 01:28 PM
I'm surprised to see iPhones have outsold iPod Touches by so much; I've never really considered the figures but just assumed that there would be way more iPod Touches around than iPhones.
zoran
Oct 15, 12:45 PM
HP is claiming to have their first Clovertown workstations available on the 15th, so only a month away. I bet we'll see the 8-core Mac Pro systems by the end of November.
Why would Apple show their Clovertown workstations after HP and not simultaneusly with HP?
Why would Apple show their Clovertown workstations after HP and not simultaneusly with HP?
John.B
Apr 6, 10:31 AM
Now just add that Thunderbolt port to the MBAs and I'll be first in line! :D
Enigmac
Aug 7, 03:31 PM
Not a glimpse of the Finder...! :eek:
*cough* TOP SECRET *cough* :rolleyes:
*cough* TOP SECRET *cough* :rolleyes:
Multimedia
Aug 17, 01:59 PM
The interesting thing to note from the Anandtech review is that to saturate a 2 core setup, all you need is one program. To saturate a quad, you need to be doing a bit more at the same time. To saturate an octo, you need to be doing a hell of a lot of things at the same time.Not so. I can only run one compression process at a time on the Quad G5 unless I want the speed of that process and others I want to run at the same time to be compromized. Both Toast and Handbrake can use 4 cores EACH.Now I don't know bout you lot, but there's only so much I can do at the same time.This is the place where you are misunderstanding how LITTLE one can do with only 4 cores. Sure it helps to be able to run anything I like and still use FCP with no performance hit. So I think a quad is perfect for that. But when it comes to 8+ cores, your actual workflow won't improve in the slightest unless it doesn't involve you having to do anything (eg run 4 instances of handbrake). I'm sure everyone once in a while has some work that can just be delegated to the CPU and it does its thing, but for the most part, where your attention and brain is needed, an 8 core will sit at least 50% idle.Not from where I'm sitting. The opposite is true for me.Considering Clovertowns will have a slower, twice saturated FSB and lower clock speeds, most people will be better off (financially and productively) with Woodcrests. I'm just hoping that when octos are announced, the quads will drop in price.But speed is not our problem. Apps already capable of saturating 4 cores need more cores to run simultaneously without compromising speed.Now if they start to optimise apps to take full advantage of more than 2 cores, that's a whole different ballgame ;)That is what has already happened. You were unaware of that fact. So yes, it is a whole different ballgame already. :eek:
Chupa Chupa
Apr 11, 06:05 AM
I think the point is apple is trying to break the mold of traditional NLE editing. Many tools and terms we use in FCP and other NLEs are derived from linear tape editing from 20+ years ago. They are trying to push to the future of editing in a new direction and that may involve rethinking aspects of how we edit. Whether it's going to work or not I guess we'll have to see...
Thank you.
The funny thing is that most of the ranters here calling themselves "professionals" are really just hacks using professional grade equipment. They comfort themselves in the fact they use the same s/w (FCP) as many in the H'wood TV and movie studios (home of the true professionals), much like a kid with an Albert Pujois edition L'ville Slugger.
I admit when iMovie '08 came out my head imploded. The entire concept seemed so ass-backwards after years with NLEs. I still don't like the "new" iMovie because its features pale in comparison of previous versions, which limits creativity. iMovie '09 and '11 have improved but are still too basic.
I have warmed up to the editing concept. I actually like it now for a quick splice job. So if it turns out iMovie has really been the beta engine for the new FCP all along I'm OK with that. It's really a snappier, more organized way to edit once you divorce all previous notions of NLE editing. Of course I don't pretend to be a professional either.
Thank you.
The funny thing is that most of the ranters here calling themselves "professionals" are really just hacks using professional grade equipment. They comfort themselves in the fact they use the same s/w (FCP) as many in the H'wood TV and movie studios (home of the true professionals), much like a kid with an Albert Pujois edition L'ville Slugger.
I admit when iMovie '08 came out my head imploded. The entire concept seemed so ass-backwards after years with NLEs. I still don't like the "new" iMovie because its features pale in comparison of previous versions, which limits creativity. iMovie '09 and '11 have improved but are still too basic.
I have warmed up to the editing concept. I actually like it now for a quick splice job. So if it turns out iMovie has really been the beta engine for the new FCP all along I'm OK with that. It's really a snappier, more organized way to edit once you divorce all previous notions of NLE editing. Of course I don't pretend to be a professional either.
studiomusic
Apr 5, 11:09 PM
Already have my tickets... I was looking forward to Kevin Smith and Philip Bloom, but FCP is a welcome announcement.
Hopefully they'll give a bunch of copies of it for the Supermeet Super Raffle.
Hopefully they'll give a bunch of copies of it for the Supermeet Super Raffle.
Rend It
Aug 5, 06:07 PM
snippet
Why is Front Row dependent on iSight ?
No good, clear reason. It's just that Front Row usually goes along with PhotoBooth, so.... Also, it seems that Apple might be really pushing iChat with Leopard, especially video chatting, and the iMac, MBP, and MB all have iSights. It doesn't seem too crazy to believe that perhaps Apple wants a built-in camera in all of their hardware. In the case of the Mac Pro, Xserve, and Mini, the natural place for such a device is a display.
Pure speculation, of course. :D
Why is Front Row dependent on iSight ?
No good, clear reason. It's just that Front Row usually goes along with PhotoBooth, so.... Also, it seems that Apple might be really pushing iChat with Leopard, especially video chatting, and the iMac, MBP, and MB all have iSights. It doesn't seem too crazy to believe that perhaps Apple wants a built-in camera in all of their hardware. In the case of the Mac Pro, Xserve, and Mini, the natural place for such a device is a display.
Pure speculation, of course. :D
vincenz
Apr 27, 07:58 AM
A "bug" right? ;)
citizenzen
Mar 17, 11:36 AM
How many times did Barack Obama attempt to draw a difference between himself and Hillary by saying "I was against the war from the beginning."? Lots.
Being against a specific military action doesn't make one a military dove.
I see you included lots of "lots" but no "links". I'm sorry, but mere rhetoric only goes so far in this forum. If there are so many instances that prove your point, why haven't you actually produced them?
Being against a specific military action doesn't make one a military dove.
I see you included lots of "lots" but no "links". I'm sorry, but mere rhetoric only goes so far in this forum. If there are so many instances that prove your point, why haven't you actually produced them?
notabadname
Apr 8, 07:28 AM
Isn't apple as equally guilty of this exact accusation against BB? Holding stock back until the next day; or is the difference that they sell everything they have available from the previous day.
Apple isn't holding stock, they are inventorying it the evening they receive it in the drop-shipment. They sell it all in the morning before the store even opens for normal business hours the next day. (At least that is how they have done it every time in Cincinnati)
Apple isn't holding stock, they are inventorying it the evening they receive it in the drop-shipment. They sell it all in the morning before the store even opens for normal business hours the next day. (At least that is how they have done it every time in Cincinnati)
twoodcc
Aug 12, 09:04 PM
I don't really care if you count the Prologues as full releases or not. The fact remains...
GT1 + GT2 + GT3 + GT4 = 46M
...not 57M like you originally, and incorrectly, said.
but you do care. you are pointing out that you care by what you just typed. if you count the prologues, you get over 57M sold.
You brought up sales, not me. And last I checked, objectively, 100 is more than 57, regardless of how you subjectively look at it.
i disagree. let's bring math into the equation, since you seem to have missed it.
100,000,000/15 = 6,666,667.
57,000,000/8 = 7,125,000.
so GT has sold more copies per game.
No, the only thing that adds to is a stat point on the back of the box. I mean, hooray, someone's 87 CRX is in a racing game. YAY!! :rolleyes:
That is the problem with GT these days. Too much fluff, and lacking in the racing. I mean, whatever, they can make whatever kind of game they want. If they want to fill the game with 1000 cars, 800 of which most people never touch, they can do that. To me, though, they are losing what made the series great years ago.
well again this is your opinion. we all have one. i personally think that if someone is into cars, they will care about their car. not everyone can afford the cars in the game, but it might be nice to see that car that you can afford and have in real life in the game. i mean, the game is meant for people into cars.
NO WAY!!! I never knew that. :rolleyes:
just pointing out the facts. are you doing any different?
Sure, but a "Guinness Record" for it? Again, to much fluff.
they have records for everything. like how much cheese you can eat, or whatever. that's what Guinness Records are
No, it is a concept car that Citro�n paraded around at car shows. Lots of concept cars get built with the fake intention of going into production. But you know what? Almost none of them do. This Citro�n is no different.
but the intention of the car was for the game. how do you not see that? specifically for the game. in fact, it's named GT after the game
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great? so iPhone sales show nothing to how good it is? or iPod sales mean nothing to how well it is? of course it does. you make games to sell. if they don't sell, you stop making games. and then there wouldn't be this thread, b/c there would be no GT5.
GT1 + GT2 + GT3 + GT4 = 46M
...not 57M like you originally, and incorrectly, said.
but you do care. you are pointing out that you care by what you just typed. if you count the prologues, you get over 57M sold.
You brought up sales, not me. And last I checked, objectively, 100 is more than 57, regardless of how you subjectively look at it.
i disagree. let's bring math into the equation, since you seem to have missed it.
100,000,000/15 = 6,666,667.
57,000,000/8 = 7,125,000.
so GT has sold more copies per game.
No, the only thing that adds to is a stat point on the back of the box. I mean, hooray, someone's 87 CRX is in a racing game. YAY!! :rolleyes:
That is the problem with GT these days. Too much fluff, and lacking in the racing. I mean, whatever, they can make whatever kind of game they want. If they want to fill the game with 1000 cars, 800 of which most people never touch, they can do that. To me, though, they are losing what made the series great years ago.
well again this is your opinion. we all have one. i personally think that if someone is into cars, they will care about their car. not everyone can afford the cars in the game, but it might be nice to see that car that you can afford and have in real life in the game. i mean, the game is meant for people into cars.
NO WAY!!! I never knew that. :rolleyes:
just pointing out the facts. are you doing any different?
Sure, but a "Guinness Record" for it? Again, to much fluff.
they have records for everything. like how much cheese you can eat, or whatever. that's what Guinness Records are
No, it is a concept car that Citro�n paraded around at car shows. Lots of concept cars get built with the fake intention of going into production. But you know what? Almost none of them do. This Citro�n is no different.
but the intention of the car was for the game. how do you not see that? specifically for the game. in fact, it's named GT after the game
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great? so iPhone sales show nothing to how good it is? or iPod sales mean nothing to how well it is? of course it does. you make games to sell. if they don't sell, you stop making games. and then there wouldn't be this thread, b/c there would be no GT5.
Huntn
Apr 28, 10:11 AM
What is absolutely hilarious, last night there were sound bites of Republican's asking "Why did Obama bring this birth certificate thing up, we have work to do!!"
Porco
Nov 28, 10:41 PM
The full article is very funny.
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way," he told the Reuters Media Summit, when asked if Universal would negotiate a royalty fee for the iPod that would be similar to Microsoft's Zune.
"The Zune (deal) was an amazingly interesting exercise, to end up with a piece of technology," he added.
"It would be a nice idea" if I got money for nothing too! And why am I tempted to read "an amazingly interesting exercise" as an amazingly interesting exercise ... he added, dollar signs flashing in his eyes like some real-life Scrooge McDuck' ?
And to end up with "a piece of technology"! Yes! wow! hahahahah, I bet Microsoft were astounded about that too.
As the various parodies of such behaviour online indicates, the whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't so ... true.
Pirates will pirate unless you give them a compelling reason not to. Legitimate customers will stay that way unless they feel piracy is an action they are ethically comfortable with. This kind of garbage makes that happen.
So for every iPod that would possibly hold a good couple of hundred Universal tracks amongst the thousands on there, I'd guess this kind of thing completely turns us nerds towards piracy rather than CD purchases/legitimate downloads. Is that $1 per iPod really going to make them as much money as the $xx they have lost on CDs and downloads? I'd guess not. Even if only 1% of people buying iPods pirate Universal tracks instead of buying them because of this deal (if it happens), it would be a loser for Universal. And of course the only people not financially at a loss because of it will be people who buy tracks, not the pirates who are back in the black as soon as they soak up the $1 surcharge by illegally downloading a Universal album as soon as they get their iPod.
If Apple did have the misfortune to be made to accept this kind of thing (unlikely right now I'd think, but you never know after a couple of ad-laden Zune-ar years), they should add the $1 to the price of the iPod so people ask "why does it cost $201?" and they should tell people on their web-site exactly why as well, providing details of how to get in touch with Universal to express their thanks.
Sorry if I've repeated any points already made... it's a Universally idiotic idea.
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way," he told the Reuters Media Summit, when asked if Universal would negotiate a royalty fee for the iPod that would be similar to Microsoft's Zune.
"The Zune (deal) was an amazingly interesting exercise, to end up with a piece of technology," he added.
"It would be a nice idea" if I got money for nothing too! And why am I tempted to read "an amazingly interesting exercise" as an amazingly interesting exercise ... he added, dollar signs flashing in his eyes like some real-life Scrooge McDuck' ?
And to end up with "a piece of technology"! Yes! wow! hahahahah, I bet Microsoft were astounded about that too.
As the various parodies of such behaviour online indicates, the whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't so ... true.
Pirates will pirate unless you give them a compelling reason not to. Legitimate customers will stay that way unless they feel piracy is an action they are ethically comfortable with. This kind of garbage makes that happen.
So for every iPod that would possibly hold a good couple of hundred Universal tracks amongst the thousands on there, I'd guess this kind of thing completely turns us nerds towards piracy rather than CD purchases/legitimate downloads. Is that $1 per iPod really going to make them as much money as the $xx they have lost on CDs and downloads? I'd guess not. Even if only 1% of people buying iPods pirate Universal tracks instead of buying them because of this deal (if it happens), it would be a loser for Universal. And of course the only people not financially at a loss because of it will be people who buy tracks, not the pirates who are back in the black as soon as they soak up the $1 surcharge by illegally downloading a Universal album as soon as they get their iPod.
If Apple did have the misfortune to be made to accept this kind of thing (unlikely right now I'd think, but you never know after a couple of ad-laden Zune-ar years), they should add the $1 to the price of the iPod so people ask "why does it cost $201?" and they should tell people on their web-site exactly why as well, providing details of how to get in touch with Universal to express their thanks.
Sorry if I've repeated any points already made... it's a Universally idiotic idea.
