JeffDM
Sep 16, 03:50 PM
One app would be iTunes. I noticed iTunes was running 14 threads last night. Any time you have a multithreaded application or are running multiple single thread aplications more cores can help.
iTunes is generally so low-impact that it could be single threaded and you probably wouldn't notice. If the main thread is bogged down, I still get the spinny color disc with iTunes on occasion. It seems to do this sometimes when I sync an iPod, iTunes sometimes won't let me do anything else.
An eight-core system should be able to eight single threaded programs running at 100% of one CPU without issue. What I hope is that more programs that need the processing power can use the full power of more than one CPU so you don't need to multitask so heavily to take advantage of the power available.
iTunes is generally so low-impact that it could be single threaded and you probably wouldn't notice. If the main thread is bogged down, I still get the spinny color disc with iTunes on occasion. It seems to do this sometimes when I sync an iPod, iTunes sometimes won't let me do anything else.
An eight-core system should be able to eight single threaded programs running at 100% of one CPU without issue. What I hope is that more programs that need the processing power can use the full power of more than one CPU so you don't need to multitask so heavily to take advantage of the power available.
samcraig
Apr 5, 05:48 PM
Nobody's using Blu-Ray, in my experience. It's just another way of sucking money out of home consumers. Everything's done online in terms of delivery...
A very ignorant post. Especially if you value quality. I hardly call providing the best quality video "sucking money out of home consumers"
Or are you one of those that want to insist that streaming "hd" video is just as good as blu-ray. Because if you are - you shouldn't have even weighed in here.
No need to school you on the difference here though unless you come back and tell me you still think there's no difference.
A very ignorant post. Especially if you value quality. I hardly call providing the best quality video "sucking money out of home consumers"
Or are you one of those that want to insist that streaming "hd" video is just as good as blu-ray. Because if you are - you shouldn't have even weighed in here.
No need to school you on the difference here though unless you come back and tell me you still think there's no difference.
Bosunsfate
Aug 5, 04:56 PM
6PM London time..
Use the dashboard clock widget if you're in the UK and open a clock then set it to Cupertino..
Correct, the time difference is plus 8 hours. Good call on the widget usage. :p
Use the dashboard clock widget if you're in the UK and open a clock then set it to Cupertino..
Correct, the time difference is plus 8 hours. Good call on the widget usage. :p
NoSmokingBandit
Nov 30, 07:15 AM
I havent gotten to them yet, but i've heard they are just as awesome as GT3's endurance races.
skunk
Apr 28, 01:24 PM
True enough, whatever Obama's virtues, I think that as a President of the United States, he's incompetent....so what you said about doubting and not believing is not true.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
AppleScruff1
Apr 20, 11:55 AM
I think this was because Woolworth (Australian supermarket giant) applied for a blanket trademark that allows it to apply it's logo on anything - especially competing electronic goods, computers, music players, and branded phones. (I'm not saying it's right, just surfacing some more details)
P.
I think you are correct. Still ridiculous, IMHO. The Woolworth logo was a fancy W.
P.
I think you are correct. Still ridiculous, IMHO. The Woolworth logo was a fancy W.
ugp
Jun 22, 09:32 AM
ugp,
Were there any PINS given in your store?
Please keep us updated. We look forward to it.
Thanks
Yes I was. Mine was the first one generated in the district so my buddy was told by his DM. He closed my ticket out as soon as the clock struck 1PM EST here.
Just got word. My buddy was just updated that he would not be allowed nor any other store is going to be authorized to open early due to the restricted Inventory levels. Radio Shack does not want to give the wrong image of the need to open early with such low levels of product at launch.
He has not received any info on how much product he would get but the memo hinted at that there would be no extra phones sent to store to the amount of reserves they had.
Were there any PINS given in your store?
Please keep us updated. We look forward to it.
Thanks
Yes I was. Mine was the first one generated in the district so my buddy was told by his DM. He closed my ticket out as soon as the clock struck 1PM EST here.
Just got word. My buddy was just updated that he would not be allowed nor any other store is going to be authorized to open early due to the restricted Inventory levels. Radio Shack does not want to give the wrong image of the need to open early with such low levels of product at launch.
He has not received any info on how much product he would get but the memo hinted at that there would be no extra phones sent to store to the amount of reserves they had.
szark
Aug 6, 02:00 PM
I have no idea how trademark law works, but looking at the information on the two trademark applications, I couldn't help but notice that Mac Pro Systems & Software filed their application after Apple filed theirs.
Assuming the USPTO thinks there is an overlap, would they favor the first to file the mark, or the first to use it?
I hope there are some interesting last-minute rumor developments tonight.
Assuming the USPTO thinks there is an overlap, would they favor the first to file the mark, or the first to use it?
I hope there are some interesting last-minute rumor developments tonight.
daver969
Sep 13, 11:05 AM
A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
What I couldn't understand - I couldn't see it explained in the article - why is the dual core Mac Pro (i.e. with current Mac Pro with 2 cores disabled) faster in so many tests than the 4 core Mac Pro.
I think part of the reason so many people seem to be hung up on the "software doesn't utilize multiple cores" mantra is because benchmarks tend to test only one software component at a time. If a given app isn't multithreaded, then it doesn't benefit from multiple cores in these tests. But that doesn't mean that multiple cores don't affect the overall system speed.
What we need is some kind of a super benchmark: How fast is my computer when I'm watching a quicktime stream of Steve demoing the latest insanely great stuff, while ripping my CD collection to iTunes, while surfing complex Cnet.com pages (w/animation), and compiling the latest version of my Java app, every once in a while flipping over to Dashboard (dashboard seems to take up a lot of system resources every time I invoke it, not just on startup).
At this point I would rather push towards more cores than more raw speed in a single core, since I don't tend to wait on any single process. If something is taking a long time, like loading a page or compiling code, I switch to something else and come back later. I would much rather have the whole system retain its responsive feel than have one app finish its task a few seconds quicker.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
What I couldn't understand - I couldn't see it explained in the article - why is the dual core Mac Pro (i.e. with current Mac Pro with 2 cores disabled) faster in so many tests than the 4 core Mac Pro.
I think part of the reason so many people seem to be hung up on the "software doesn't utilize multiple cores" mantra is because benchmarks tend to test only one software component at a time. If a given app isn't multithreaded, then it doesn't benefit from multiple cores in these tests. But that doesn't mean that multiple cores don't affect the overall system speed.
What we need is some kind of a super benchmark: How fast is my computer when I'm watching a quicktime stream of Steve demoing the latest insanely great stuff, while ripping my CD collection to iTunes, while surfing complex Cnet.com pages (w/animation), and compiling the latest version of my Java app, every once in a while flipping over to Dashboard (dashboard seems to take up a lot of system resources every time I invoke it, not just on startup).
At this point I would rather push towards more cores than more raw speed in a single core, since I don't tend to wait on any single process. If something is taking a long time, like loading a page or compiling code, I switch to something else and come back later. I would much rather have the whole system retain its responsive feel than have one app finish its task a few seconds quicker.
ferguldy
Jul 27, 09:49 AM
So are we really going to get ALL of these new toys come WWDC? Leopard preview, Merom laptops, Core2/Woodcrest Mac Pros, Core2 Imacs (oh, and maybe a movie download add to iTunes) That sounds like an awful lot of stuff to cover in such a short period of time. What do people think about timelines for introduction here?
gugy
Aug 11, 03:51 PM
i just want a cell phone that works.
all these phones today(by all these phones i mean the motorolas i have had, so mayby motorola's jsut suck) have this ridiculous amount of latency when you are navigating the menus. cause they have to have all this fancy crap flyin around. its like phones are using the same technology from 5 years ago but they are just piling these features into them so they dog down. overall phones today seem to suck just a bit. my nokia 8260 was the best phone i ever had and it was monochrome with no camera or video or stupid crap like that...
plus it seems that my phones ability to get reception when inside a building has gotten worse over time too. i used to get good reception inside my work, but now i don't. and its the same building.
so all in all, just give me a phone that works and functions well and i'll be happy.
I agree simplicity is everything!
Knowing Apple, I hope the Iphone will be simple and slick. That's all we really need.
all these phones today(by all these phones i mean the motorolas i have had, so mayby motorola's jsut suck) have this ridiculous amount of latency when you are navigating the menus. cause they have to have all this fancy crap flyin around. its like phones are using the same technology from 5 years ago but they are just piling these features into them so they dog down. overall phones today seem to suck just a bit. my nokia 8260 was the best phone i ever had and it was monochrome with no camera or video or stupid crap like that...
plus it seems that my phones ability to get reception when inside a building has gotten worse over time too. i used to get good reception inside my work, but now i don't. and its the same building.
so all in all, just give me a phone that works and functions well and i'll be happy.
I agree simplicity is everything!
Knowing Apple, I hope the Iphone will be simple and slick. That's all we really need.
iMikeT
Aug 17, 03:28 PM
I'll just wait until the 4GHZ Mac Pro. I wonder what that bad boy can do.:rolleyes:
jamesW135
Aug 19, 10:16 PM
Whoa! I'm amazed at how it compared to the G5 in the Photoshop Speed test. If it was this fast now. Imagine PS once it's a UB!!:eek:
mrblack927
Apr 27, 08:15 AM
Wow. That's surprising. This whole time people downplayed it because there was no evidence that apple was actually transmitting this data. It wasn't a big deal because the db file was local only. Now when Apple addresses it they had to not only admit that the file exists but that they actually were transmitting data.
Ah well, still not a big deal. :p
Ah well, still not a big deal. :p
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 03:22 PM
Who wants to go through the trouble of doing a software change to unlock their phone.
It is a code you are given to unlock the cell. NOT a software change, unless the carrier changes the entire phone software.
It is a code you are given to unlock the cell. NOT a software change, unless the carrier changes the entire phone software.
LethalWolfe
Apr 10, 11:16 PM
The guy who 'botched' iMovie is the same person that created Final Cut and continues to work on Final Cut. Randy Ubillos has been the head of Apple's video editing suites/applications for as long as I can remember.
He's also the guy that headed up Adobe Premiere. Sure, the iMovie revamp wasn't a high point but the guy laid the foundations for two of the three most popular NLE's so he can't be all bad. ;)
Lethal
He's also the guy that headed up Adobe Premiere. Sure, the iMovie revamp wasn't a high point but the guy laid the foundations for two of the three most popular NLE's so he can't be all bad. ;)
Lethal
reflex
Sep 19, 07:51 AM
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'd of thought buying the latest and fastest computer every year would be the first thing a 'pro-user' would do with his money.
I can't speak for everyone, but there are a few considerations apart from speed:
- the available funds
- the ability to deduct the purchase from taxes
- having to reinstall everything on the new computer
Speed is nice, but when a two year old laptop is mostly fast enough (in my case), then why buy a new one after only a year?
I usually buy a new laptop about every two years. This is a relatively nice trade off between my desire to have the latest of everything and actually getting any work done.
I can't speak for everyone, but there are a few considerations apart from speed:
- the available funds
- the ability to deduct the purchase from taxes
- having to reinstall everything on the new computer
Speed is nice, but when a two year old laptop is mostly fast enough (in my case), then why buy a new one after only a year?
I usually buy a new laptop about every two years. This is a relatively nice trade off between my desire to have the latest of everything and actually getting any work done.
azzurri000
Sep 18, 11:32 PM
All I have to say is:
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
This update better be bitchin!
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
This update better be bitchin!
hayesk
Mar 26, 02:39 PM
Yet another unimpressive "major" update to an O/S that's showing it's age and irrelevance. (Hell it's already to most consumers nothing more than "That thing you gotta hook your iPad up to to make it work.) Compared to the iDevice world, the computer side of Apple has ground to a halt. Is it intentional I wonder...? ;)
Enough!! Combine MacOS and iOS already!!! The transition is so painfully slow, would someone else in tech get off their lazy ass and prod these guys to move a LITTLE quicker?!?
Consumers don't care about the OS at all, on a desktop or on an iOS device. They care about using their computer to do tasks. The more the OS becomes invisible to the user, the better.
I also have to laugh at the people complaining that Lion has nothing to offer at the same time they are complaining that it's turning into iOS. Do you want the OS to progress or stay the same? Make up your minds. What do these people want Lion to have. I'm guessing they can't imagine anything beyond including some third party utilities that they already use.
Enough!! Combine MacOS and iOS already!!! The transition is so painfully slow, would someone else in tech get off their lazy ass and prod these guys to move a LITTLE quicker?!?
Consumers don't care about the OS at all, on a desktop or on an iOS device. They care about using their computer to do tasks. The more the OS becomes invisible to the user, the better.
I also have to laugh at the people complaining that Lion has nothing to offer at the same time they are complaining that it's turning into iOS. Do you want the OS to progress or stay the same? Make up your minds. What do these people want Lion to have. I'm guessing they can't imagine anything beyond including some third party utilities that they already use.
840quadra
Nov 28, 06:51 PM
Adds universal to the list of Companies I do not buy from..
Wait..
They are already on that list!
GTH Universal! I bought my iPod, Every song on it, and will continue to do so. Stop Extorting the public, and possibly you may actually have some fans, or people that want to deal with your crappy company!
Wait..
They are already on that list!
GTH Universal! I bought my iPod, Every song on it, and will continue to do so. Stop Extorting the public, and possibly you may actually have some fans, or people that want to deal with your crappy company!
KnightWRX
Apr 20, 11:35 AM
I pointed out the Grid layout many times in the other thread and was told that wasn't part of the lawsuit. If it is than Apple isn't just stretching... they are being idiotic.
According to the analysis, it is in the suit, as part of the trade dress claims.
According to the analysis, it is in the suit, as part of the trade dress claims.
YEMandy
Aug 26, 06:37 PM
Could this mean an iMac update is coming soon as well? I ordered a loaded iMac two weeks ago and it still hasn't shipped yet. The estimated ship date is Aug. 28th with arrival on the 5th...
realitymonkey
Apr 6, 09:52 AM
You must have pretty limited experience.
It's the only logistical way to deliver high-bitrate 1080p material to clients.
Really what sort of clients ?
It's the only logistical way to deliver high-bitrate 1080p material to clients.
Really what sort of clients ?
No comments:
Post a Comment