Aduntu
Apr 22, 08:36 PM
You referring to the big bang, or those reported six days?
Well, considering the six days doesn't refer to six literal days, I must be referring to the big bang.
Well, considering the six days doesn't refer to six literal days, I must be referring to the big bang.
Small White Car
Aug 29, 11:15 AM
:rolleyes:
Great ideas, folks.
Dell is doing something better than Apple? Well then the report must be wrong!
Problem solved, good job guys!
Great ideas, folks.
Dell is doing something better than Apple? Well then the report must be wrong!
Problem solved, good job guys!
whatever
Oct 25, 10:44 PM
I just got my mac pro a month and a half ago.
Don't worry about it.
There is no reason for Apple to change the MacPro line at this point. Maybe in January, but even then I doubt it.
Intel is just trying to bury AMD, which they are (AMD closed at $20.83 (just think a few months ago they were trading over $40.00) and Intel closed at $21.72 (a few months ago they were trading at $16.00)).
Apple said it last week, Pros are waiting for CS3 before they upgrade, so expect to hear the announcement of upgraded Mac Pros once Adobe finishes up their applications.
Besides wasn't there a thread a few weeks back which stated that the 8 Core machines run slower than the Quads?
Don't worry about it. I know that my new MacPro has already paid for itself.
Don't worry about it.
There is no reason for Apple to change the MacPro line at this point. Maybe in January, but even then I doubt it.
Intel is just trying to bury AMD, which they are (AMD closed at $20.83 (just think a few months ago they were trading over $40.00) and Intel closed at $21.72 (a few months ago they were trading at $16.00)).
Apple said it last week, Pros are waiting for CS3 before they upgrade, so expect to hear the announcement of upgraded Mac Pros once Adobe finishes up their applications.
Besides wasn't there a thread a few weeks back which stated that the 8 Core machines run slower than the Quads?
Don't worry about it. I know that my new MacPro has already paid for itself.
redkamel
Aug 29, 06:57 PM
3 The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. ...
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Rocketman
Sep 26, 09:43 AM
My only hope is now that multi-core systems have gone mainstream that someone (cough -M$-cough) will make multi-processor aware apps "fashionable" and extend the trend.
Also solid state drives are needed to properly service the I/O needs. Why NOT put a solid state SATA drive in one slot on a MacPro so you can use it for a swap space? Or a PCI slot based device?
Remember, price is no object! I used to run my Mac+ in ramdrive mode and it was faster that way than my friend's IIfx for apps that would fit in the limited space. External SCSI drive for strorage in that mode.
I must be old :)
Rocketman
Also solid state drives are needed to properly service the I/O needs. Why NOT put a solid state SATA drive in one slot on a MacPro so you can use it for a swap space? Or a PCI slot based device?
Remember, price is no object! I used to run my Mac+ in ramdrive mode and it was faster that way than my friend's IIfx for apps that would fit in the limited space. External SCSI drive for strorage in that mode.
I must be old :)
Rocketman
firestarter
Mar 13, 02:09 PM
But how do you proponents of nuclear power discount the very real risks it poses to mankind itself? War and terrorism especially. HUGE accident(s) waiting to happen.
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
I can't recall a war fought over nuclear power, but we're living through one driven by our need to access cheap oil (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece).
Do you think that our heavy handed approach to Persian Gulf politics increases or decreases the threat of terrorism? Although we've been keen to see regime change in Egypt and Libya, there's no way we'll assist any sort of change in Saudi - since we need the oil. Yet most of the 9/11 hijackers were disaffected Saudi men! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks)
So I think your argument that nuclear power increases the threat of terrorism and war is naive, given that the only other option is oil - which most definitely does!
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
I can't recall a war fought over nuclear power, but we're living through one driven by our need to access cheap oil (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece).
Do you think that our heavy handed approach to Persian Gulf politics increases or decreases the threat of terrorism? Although we've been keen to see regime change in Egypt and Libya, there's no way we'll assist any sort of change in Saudi - since we need the oil. Yet most of the 9/11 hijackers were disaffected Saudi men! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks)
So I think your argument that nuclear power increases the threat of terrorism and war is naive, given that the only other option is oil - which most definitely does!
SandynJosh
May 2, 06:37 PM
After seeing at least two posters refer to this as a "virus", I'm sitting here doing a face palm. One more "it's a virus" comment and I'm moving up to the double face palm...
Actually there are at least five posters adding to the confusion by promulgating such ignorance. I've added maclaptop, turbobass, ElCidRo, campingsk8er, ciTiger to my permanent "ignore" list from this one thread alone.
Actually there are at least five posters adding to the confusion by promulgating such ignorance. I've added maclaptop, turbobass, ElCidRo, campingsk8er, ciTiger to my permanent "ignore" list from this one thread alone.
balamw
Sep 12, 07:21 PM
Here's another pic from the event today, taken by the Gizmodo guys...
Looking at their other pictures answered a question I was wondering. Does this thing have an Ethernet port, and it apparently does. I'd rather not rely on wireless. Right now I have a VGA cable from my iMac to my TV, so I'd gain something by replacing it with a simple CAT5.
I'm a bit surprised not to see any USB or FW ports on there though. I was betting on being able to hook up an optional HDD.
B
Looking at their other pictures answered a question I was wondering. Does this thing have an Ethernet port, and it apparently does. I'd rather not rely on wireless. Right now I have a VGA cable from my iMac to my TV, so I'd gain something by replacing it with a simple CAT5.
I'm a bit surprised not to see any USB or FW ports on there though. I was betting on being able to hook up an optional HDD.
B
LaDirection
Apr 15, 09:20 AM
Excellent initiative.
go4koko
May 31, 06:53 PM
Ok...so here's the deal...
I've been on AT&T for over a year now, using an iPhone 3g. No dropped calls at all, 5 bars everywhere in my area, and full 3G coverage.
Verizon has 0 bars in my area, and their phones are crap...
Way to go AT&T!
WTF? Why do people buy phones without knowing if they work in their areas first? If I went by what people say on these boards, I'd have bought a Verizon phone that wouldn't work in my area, and on a phone that's crap....
STOP MAKING PURCHASING DECISIONS BASED ON OTHER PEOPLES OPINIONS!
:apple: How would you go about finding out if a phone or carrier service worked in a certain area if you didn't consult other people or credible sources? Wouldn't you have to make a decision based on 'Other Peoples Opinions' in order to find out? If you know Verizon service yields 0 bars in your area do you know this as a previous Verizon service customer, consult someone directly or take the 'Opinion' of the AT&T salesman?
Are you so inflexible as to believe no one in the universe has occasional connection problems? Do you live under an AT&T tower and never stray far from it? I'm looking to get an iPhone in 2 months and I hope it really is as reliable as you describe.
I've been on AT&T for over a year now, using an iPhone 3g. No dropped calls at all, 5 bars everywhere in my area, and full 3G coverage.
Verizon has 0 bars in my area, and their phones are crap...
Way to go AT&T!
WTF? Why do people buy phones without knowing if they work in their areas first? If I went by what people say on these boards, I'd have bought a Verizon phone that wouldn't work in my area, and on a phone that's crap....
STOP MAKING PURCHASING DECISIONS BASED ON OTHER PEOPLES OPINIONS!
:apple: How would you go about finding out if a phone or carrier service worked in a certain area if you didn't consult other people or credible sources? Wouldn't you have to make a decision based on 'Other Peoples Opinions' in order to find out? If you know Verizon service yields 0 bars in your area do you know this as a previous Verizon service customer, consult someone directly or take the 'Opinion' of the AT&T salesman?
Are you so inflexible as to believe no one in the universe has occasional connection problems? Do you live under an AT&T tower and never stray far from it? I'm looking to get an iPhone in 2 months and I hope it really is as reliable as you describe.
Blackcat
Sep 20, 11:09 AM
eyeHome does not support HD and it never will. I got this in an email directly from Elgato. That is the biggest difference. Also, the general consensus is that eyeHome is not in the same league of robustness/intuitiveness as other elgato products or Apple products. eyeHome cannot even play back eyeTV 500 , eyeTV Hybrid recordings.
But nobody will be downloading HD for iTV, so that's a moot point. From what I've seen so far it actually does less than other media streamers.
But nobody will be downloading HD for iTV, so that's a moot point. From what I've seen so far it actually does less than other media streamers.
darkwing
Aug 29, 11:51 AM
These groups don't care at all about the environment. They only want to hinder businesses. These are the same groups that protest plans and lobby politicians to stop building power plants and refineries so the existing ones can be over worked (lower efficiency) and not allow for downtime for maintenance, further lowering efficiency. These groups have an agenda that has nothing to do with the environment. I believe that Apple does just fine, as do many other companies. I'll gladly buy my Merom MBP and sell my Rev E 17" pbg4 as soon as Apple makes it available to me. :)
space2go
Mar 20, 07:12 PM
Music is too expensive, and the music industry doesn't do anything to fill the needs of the consumer - a aac file doesn't cost a penny to produce, unlike the CD, so why is a aac file so expensive? The music industry doesn't allow to sell mp3's - which is the format most likely to be accepted by the comsumer.
Actually if i were an evil MI exectutive i'd developed (or rather have made my techs develop) DRM for mp3 and just sold it as mp3(with some explanation in tiny fontsize).
With the mp3 format it would even be simple to have some explaining sound as normal audio content and the actual "protected" content in another frame so normal players tell you why you're wrong ;).
Marketed as mp3, supported mp3 players play it and once people notice they got suckered it's too late.
Of course a generic DRM system for arbitrary content is just as easy to do but selling it piece by piece sure is the better business strategy.
Of course as no DRM system actually can work you'll never get out of business selling updates.
Actually if i were an evil MI exectutive i'd developed (or rather have made my techs develop) DRM for mp3 and just sold it as mp3(with some explanation in tiny fontsize).
With the mp3 format it would even be simple to have some explaining sound as normal audio content and the actual "protected" content in another frame so normal players tell you why you're wrong ;).
Marketed as mp3, supported mp3 players play it and once people notice they got suckered it's too late.
Of course a generic DRM system for arbitrary content is just as easy to do but selling it piece by piece sure is the better business strategy.
Of course as no DRM system actually can work you'll never get out of business selling updates.
jiggie2g
Jul 13, 08:07 AM
Because Conroes are faster, better value for money and competitive with what non-Apple desktops will offer. I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it. Would you be happy, as a consumer, if Apple decided to give you a Merom based iMac rather than a Conroe iMac just because they couldn't be bothered designing a new MoBo for the new chip? I wouldn't, which is why I intend to buy a new iMac only if they're Conroe based.
Even the top-end Merom (2.33Ghz) will not be able to keep up with the standard Conroe (2.4Ghz) and costs nearly twice as much. Which would mean the only consumer Apple desktop would not be able to keep up with even bog standard Conroe PC's from DELL (or whoever) and still cost much more. It simply makes no sense for Apple or consumers.
For example, a 2.4Ghz Conroe will cost Apple $316 however a 2.33Ghz Merom will cost Apple over $600 or a 2.16Ghz Merom $423. Now why would Apple pay over $100 more for a 2.16Ghz Merom compared to a 2.4Ghz Conroe? Merom is slower and more expensive, it makes neither logical or financial sense for Apple to use them in the iMac if they have the option of Conroe with a new MoBo. End of.
I am now convinced you have no idea what u are talking about , Merom is not faster per mhz then conore regrardless of FSB crap , and i have seen this 1st hand on xtremesystems , Merom makes perfect sense. This is jjust wishuful thinking from spoild mac brats wanting to measure thier ePenises.
The reason is cost more is because it's a more efficient chip per watt then conore. If apple were to use conore then would have to build a completely diffrernt board , with an even hotter CPU plus lets now add a hotter custom GPU. It would still use a notebook mobo as a standard one would not fit in the enclosure. This was also the case with the iMac G5 , the only thing Desktop about the iMac is the standard Hard Drive and CPU. It will still use an intergrated GPU like a notebook , Slim DVD Burner , and lower FSB for heat restraints. They did this with the iMac G5 as well.
Even the top-end Merom (2.33Ghz) will not be able to keep up with the standard Conroe (2.4Ghz) and costs nearly twice as much. Which would mean the only consumer Apple desktop would not be able to keep up with even bog standard Conroe PC's from DELL (or whoever) and still cost much more. It simply makes no sense for Apple or consumers.
For example, a 2.4Ghz Conroe will cost Apple $316 however a 2.33Ghz Merom will cost Apple over $600 or a 2.16Ghz Merom $423. Now why would Apple pay over $100 more for a 2.16Ghz Merom compared to a 2.4Ghz Conroe? Merom is slower and more expensive, it makes neither logical or financial sense for Apple to use them in the iMac if they have the option of Conroe with a new MoBo. End of.
I am now convinced you have no idea what u are talking about , Merom is not faster per mhz then conore regrardless of FSB crap , and i have seen this 1st hand on xtremesystems , Merom makes perfect sense. This is jjust wishuful thinking from spoild mac brats wanting to measure thier ePenises.
The reason is cost more is because it's a more efficient chip per watt then conore. If apple were to use conore then would have to build a completely diffrernt board , with an even hotter CPU plus lets now add a hotter custom GPU. It would still use a notebook mobo as a standard one would not fit in the enclosure. This was also the case with the iMac G5 , the only thing Desktop about the iMac is the standard Hard Drive and CPU. It will still use an intergrated GPU like a notebook , Slim DVD Burner , and lower FSB for heat restraints. They did this with the iMac G5 as well.
dudemac
Mar 19, 07:51 AM
As of this morning sometime it seems that it is no longer able to download, but still allows browsing and account login.
sblasl
Nov 2, 08:25 PM
Sorry, still trying to get up to speed on all of this intel stuff...:o
HiRez
Sep 12, 05:31 PM
Dream On!
The NFL charges $199.00 for Sunday Ticket and an additonal $100.00 for HD content of only some of the games. They would never let live games be streamed for $30 for an entire season.Yeah, but that's for every NFL game, right? I'm just talking about the games for a single team, 16 total games throughout the season. I agree with you, $30 is probably too low but still, it should be a lot less than Sunday Ticket. Wouldn't they rather get most of that money directly (with a small cut to Apple) rather than getting a tiny sliver from Comcast (where it's part of the extended cable package and not charged for separately)?
The NFL charges $199.00 for Sunday Ticket and an additonal $100.00 for HD content of only some of the games. They would never let live games be streamed for $30 for an entire season.Yeah, but that's for every NFL game, right? I'm just talking about the games for a single team, 16 total games throughout the season. I agree with you, $30 is probably too low but still, it should be a lot less than Sunday Ticket. Wouldn't they rather get most of that money directly (with a small cut to Apple) rather than getting a tiny sliver from Comcast (where it's part of the extended cable package and not charged for separately)?
ct2k7
Apr 24, 06:32 PM
I would never claim any such thing. If anything, the Quran is more related to the books of the Old Testament, some of which Islam shares, hence the "People of The Book". The Ugaritic chief god, El, of course was the prototype for Yahweh/Jehovah/El/Allah, and the minor gods were kept on as "angels" by all three religions.
I completely agree with you. These Abrahamic religions do have a lot in common.
Edit, a few Christians tried to sue a Muslim representative here. It failed.
I completely agree with you. These Abrahamic religions do have a lot in common.
Edit, a few Christians tried to sue a Muslim representative here. It failed.
fpnc
Mar 20, 05:20 PM
IMO, this whole discussion has deteriorated beyond any form of usefulness. However, it does reaffirm two points -- never discuss either politics ("laws") or religion ("right" and "wrong") in mixed company. :)
The recent direction of this debate should have been seen as a non-starter -- that is, neither side of the argument is going to win and thus it's pointless to continue.
It does seem somewhat newsworthy, however, that there have been a few reports that the PyMusique utility has stopped working. Apparently you can no longer complete the purchase authorization. Can anyone else confirm this (may or may not be true)?
The recent direction of this debate should have been seen as a non-starter -- that is, neither side of the argument is going to win and thus it's pointless to continue.
It does seem somewhat newsworthy, however, that there have been a few reports that the PyMusique utility has stopped working. Apparently you can no longer complete the purchase authorization. Can anyone else confirm this (may or may not be true)?
Sydde
Mar 26, 01:43 AM
Love conquers all until it hits a rough patch
au revoir
My parents had two children. They (mom & dad) were good Christians (not Catholics, though). They hit a "rough patch". До свидание. Your anecdotes are meaningless BS. Religious devotion + children + love < stability.
au revoir
My parents had two children. They (mom & dad) were good Christians (not Catholics, though). They hit a "rough patch". До свидание. Your anecdotes are meaningless BS. Religious devotion + children + love < stability.
mattbatt
Oct 31, 02:08 PM
Know your workload. Do you use applications that are multi-core aware? Do you want to run them simultaneously? Do you want to run several applications simultaneously - each doing work at the same time? Leopard is bound to be very multi-core friendly since 4 cores will be the norm when it ships.
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)
Yah, I'm in the same boat BUT I still have my dual G5 2.0 from June '03. You must do a lot of intense processing! Mine still runs great, works fine for me (graphic designer by profession, FCP editor + 3D rendering for fun in Strata CX 4.2). Honestly, FCP could be faster, but I think it is mainly because I am not running a raid and I only have 1.5 GB RAM.
First of all, I think I qualify for some medium to hard data crunching and I can vouch that my dual 2.0 is still a great workhorse. I do plan on waiting for the 8 cores to upgrade so I can be ontop again, (it felt good to have the fastest mac for a while!!!) I also didn't think the Mac Pro was worth the money for me because the PPC software slowdown (for real world tests in CS2, I was running around the same speed). I am also very ready for CS3. I just figure I've waited this long, why not wait a little more . . . though trying to get any $$ for my G5 is going to be hard.
In the 6 pages of threads I read so far, I honestly can say that the 8 cores are going to be awesome, though I hope they offer a 3Ghz model. Anandtech (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=9) showed that even the Quad Mac Pro was beat at daily office crunching by the Intel Core 2 Extreme. Ofcourse for multithread, the quad wins but it does show that Ghz still plays a significant role in overal performance, like we all know.
One comment about the FSB: the more truly 64 bit we go, especially with leopard, the more taxed the FSB will become (by pulling gobs of memory at 64 bit addresses). We really haven't done this yet, but I heard computers could actually go slower because of this.
SO, I'm banking on the 8 cores having a faster bus and *wish*wish* being able to support PC graphic cards in crossfire nativly without having to flash the rom . . . you do know, Apple was the first to offer dual graphic cards years ago . . .in a crossfire like fashion? Let's get that back with another 16 lane slot:)
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)
Yah, I'm in the same boat BUT I still have my dual G5 2.0 from June '03. You must do a lot of intense processing! Mine still runs great, works fine for me (graphic designer by profession, FCP editor + 3D rendering for fun in Strata CX 4.2). Honestly, FCP could be faster, but I think it is mainly because I am not running a raid and I only have 1.5 GB RAM.
First of all, I think I qualify for some medium to hard data crunching and I can vouch that my dual 2.0 is still a great workhorse. I do plan on waiting for the 8 cores to upgrade so I can be ontop again, (it felt good to have the fastest mac for a while!!!) I also didn't think the Mac Pro was worth the money for me because the PPC software slowdown (for real world tests in CS2, I was running around the same speed). I am also very ready for CS3. I just figure I've waited this long, why not wait a little more . . . though trying to get any $$ for my G5 is going to be hard.
In the 6 pages of threads I read so far, I honestly can say that the 8 cores are going to be awesome, though I hope they offer a 3Ghz model. Anandtech (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=9) showed that even the Quad Mac Pro was beat at daily office crunching by the Intel Core 2 Extreme. Ofcourse for multithread, the quad wins but it does show that Ghz still plays a significant role in overal performance, like we all know.
One comment about the FSB: the more truly 64 bit we go, especially with leopard, the more taxed the FSB will become (by pulling gobs of memory at 64 bit addresses). We really haven't done this yet, but I heard computers could actually go slower because of this.
SO, I'm banking on the 8 cores having a faster bus and *wish*wish* being able to support PC graphic cards in crossfire nativly without having to flash the rom . . . you do know, Apple was the first to offer dual graphic cards years ago . . .in a crossfire like fashion? Let's get that back with another 16 lane slot:)
w_parietti22
Jul 11, 10:19 PM
Xeon! Conroe (Core 2 Duo)is going in the iMac
DrGruv1
Oct 26, 08:49 AM
but it's still great to see :)
should be fun to process on this octomac - very fun to see 8 proc. in logic :)
should be fun to process on this octomac - very fun to see 8 proc. in logic :)
ender land
Apr 23, 06:56 PM
Have we answered the question of why there are so many atheists here? We got sidetracked by a few people making generalizations about atheists but not adding much substance.
I thought I answered this fairly well on the previous page.
*shrug*
I thought I answered this fairly well on the previous page.
*shrug*
No comments:
Post a Comment