ChrisA
Sep 13, 10:54 AM
Arrays of cheap RAM on a PCIe card?
The RAM companies don't seem interested in making wodges of slow cheap hi-cap ram, only in bumping up the speed and upping the capacity. For the last 10 years, a stick of decent RAM has always been about �100/ $100 no matter what the capacity / flavour of the moment is.
Even slow RAM is still orders of magnitude faster than a HD, hence my point. There's various historical and technical factors as to why we have the current situation.
I've also looked at RAID implementations (I run a RAID5) but each RAID level has its own problems.
I've recently seen that single-user RAID3 might be one way forward for the desktop, but don't really know enough about it yet.
The reason for the RAM improvoments in speed and size are that RAM (not CPU) is the main bottle neck in preformance. A CPU can only execute instructions as fast as they can be pulled out of RAM. Now you go and put multiple cores inthe box and the demand on RAM doubles.
As for RAID. I think the way forward is Sun's "ZFS" file system. There was talk of that moving into Mac OSX and we know it is being ported to BSD Unix and Linux. Basically ZFS makes the RAID layer just go away
Read more here...
http://www.sun.com/2004-0914/feature/index.html
Sun has released this as Open Source. so it will get ported around to other OSes. I hear Sun's Dtrace is already in Leopard
The RAM companies don't seem interested in making wodges of slow cheap hi-cap ram, only in bumping up the speed and upping the capacity. For the last 10 years, a stick of decent RAM has always been about �100/ $100 no matter what the capacity / flavour of the moment is.
Even slow RAM is still orders of magnitude faster than a HD, hence my point. There's various historical and technical factors as to why we have the current situation.
I've also looked at RAID implementations (I run a RAID5) but each RAID level has its own problems.
I've recently seen that single-user RAID3 might be one way forward for the desktop, but don't really know enough about it yet.
The reason for the RAM improvoments in speed and size are that RAM (not CPU) is the main bottle neck in preformance. A CPU can only execute instructions as fast as they can be pulled out of RAM. Now you go and put multiple cores inthe box and the demand on RAM doubles.
As for RAID. I think the way forward is Sun's "ZFS" file system. There was talk of that moving into Mac OSX and we know it is being ported to BSD Unix and Linux. Basically ZFS makes the RAID layer just go away
Read more here...
http://www.sun.com/2004-0914/feature/index.html
Sun has released this as Open Source. so it will get ported around to other OSes. I hear Sun's Dtrace is already in Leopard
layte
Mar 31, 03:58 PM
First, I have a Dell Streak. Wanted to see what the fuss was about. Took a year for the official Froyo release to appear. Yeah, fragmentation exists.
(I appreciate Android on the Streak, but GOOD GOD does it feel like a laggy piece of software compared to my iPhone and iPad. It has widgets and tons of convenient apps for pirating software or games (no... I own ALL those ROMS)... but I digress.)
So, Android unifies. Google forces handset/tablet manufacturers to adopt a stock OS interface. How will they differentiate themselves? What incentive, beyond a free OS, will there be to creating "phone B" that looks just like "phone A". This is where Google will shoot itself in the foot. The less the carriers and handset manufacturers can customize, the less incentive they have to launch on Android. Heck, just emulate Android if you want the apps, right RIM?
Weren't there waves a few weeks about about Motorola wanting its own OS? I'd want to control my own destiny. This is creating a "walled garden" (Andy as caretaker) for the device manufacturers/carriers, and they're the ones that Google needs to be pushing the platform.
The thing is, if handset manufacturers want to crap up a handset with their own gunk they are free to do so still. They will have to wait longer than has been the case (is there an echo in here?) but it is still possible. This isn't Google completely shutting off access, just them making things a bit harder (some will think this is a good thing, some wont).
Perhaps they can differentiate with hardware, or custom applications (just not anything that messes with the base OS by the looks of things). Horrible skins need to die a death, even hardcore fandroids would agree with that.
(I appreciate Android on the Streak, but GOOD GOD does it feel like a laggy piece of software compared to my iPhone and iPad. It has widgets and tons of convenient apps for pirating software or games (no... I own ALL those ROMS)... but I digress.)
So, Android unifies. Google forces handset/tablet manufacturers to adopt a stock OS interface. How will they differentiate themselves? What incentive, beyond a free OS, will there be to creating "phone B" that looks just like "phone A". This is where Google will shoot itself in the foot. The less the carriers and handset manufacturers can customize, the less incentive they have to launch on Android. Heck, just emulate Android if you want the apps, right RIM?
Weren't there waves a few weeks about about Motorola wanting its own OS? I'd want to control my own destiny. This is creating a "walled garden" (Andy as caretaker) for the device manufacturers/carriers, and they're the ones that Google needs to be pushing the platform.
The thing is, if handset manufacturers want to crap up a handset with their own gunk they are free to do so still. They will have to wait longer than has been the case (is there an echo in here?) but it is still possible. This isn't Google completely shutting off access, just them making things a bit harder (some will think this is a good thing, some wont).
Perhaps they can differentiate with hardware, or custom applications (just not anything that messes with the base OS by the looks of things). Horrible skins need to die a death, even hardcore fandroids would agree with that.
FF_productions
Aug 15, 01:18 PM
I think I'll stick to the 2.66Ghz and standard graphics card, as FCP and compressor are more CPU intensive I believe.
Premiere Pro, for an example, is starting to use GPU-accelerated effects, I think it's a trend that will soon be coming over to FCP.
I'd get the 2.6 ghz, then add another graphics card in the future if the current one doesn't suffice.
Premiere Pro, for an example, is starting to use GPU-accelerated effects, I think it's a trend that will soon be coming over to FCP.
I'd get the 2.6 ghz, then add another graphics card in the future if the current one doesn't suffice.
Ou2okCiBMec8!cmBw~~_3.JPG%3Fpsid%3D1 "ordinary shape-ups into")
superfula
Apr 6, 10:53 AM
Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
Of course we do. The integrated graphics card will perform just as poorly as every other Sandy Bridge processor because it's the same.
Of course we do. The integrated graphics card will perform just as poorly as every other Sandy Bridge processor because it's the same.
Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 6, 10:27 AM
This is what I've been waiting for. Apple is about to get a chunk of my bank account lol. Upgrading from an early 2008 MBP
Astro7x
Apr 6, 11:34 AM
This is Bowl *****!!! Come on man....I see these claims with absolutely NO, ZERO proof to back it up...Links? Pics? Video???? IF anything, MORE people have joined the FCP camp...because more people than EVER are buying Macs! Even though Adobe and Avid are cross platform, the affordability of FCP is a real bonus. Everyone I know that uses FCP and has been using FCP has ZERO interest in flipping. Unless you have an extreme PC...Adobe makes no sense (unless you are using the Quadro nVidia cards in a Mac Pro). Sure, the Merc engine increases performance for a few transitions and filters....but rendering is still necessary in MOST cases! Today's speed of the new Macs....MBP, iMacs, Mac Pros...makes the transition from AVC, XDCam, DVCPro, etc to Pro-Res, is actually a very speedy process. Even Canon stepped up last spring with a plug in to increase transition speed almost a 1,000% (used to take a minute or two to transform...now done in 10 seconds or less!!!). Once in Pro Res, editing is an absolute breeze...a cake walk, easy as pie:) Especially if you have a recent generation Mac from the last couple of years.
Seconding this. And also would like to add... What businesses out there can just switch operating systems on a whim because they latest and greatest came out for another platform? Sure if you are Joe Schmo freelancing out of your house you can do it, but any actual business with existing equipment doesn't just switch like that. I just can't picture anybody going "Damn Apple won't support the Mercury Engine, I'M SWITCHING BACK TO WINDOWS!!!"
Seconding this. And also would like to add... What businesses out there can just switch operating systems on a whim because they latest and greatest came out for another platform? Sure if you are Joe Schmo freelancing out of your house you can do it, but any actual business with existing equipment doesn't just switch like that. I just can't picture anybody going "Damn Apple won't support the Mercury Engine, I'M SWITCHING BACK TO WINDOWS!!!"
hexor
Mar 26, 08:24 AM
People may not realize that Mac OS X Server will be INCLUDED with the client version of OS X Lion. This in itself was a several hundred dollar product. Not only does it make running your own server even easier for non-techies it simplifies the OS X product version choices from 2 down to 1. And licensing for that broken up into single or family pack.
How many different versions of Windows does MS sell? :p I can't even figure out the number of versions of Windows MS makes, it is at least a couple dozen while Apple provides the same equivalent functionality in only 2 (single/family pack). The overhead in managing all those different versions is mind-bongling.
How many different versions of Windows does MS sell? :p I can't even figure out the number of versions of Windows MS makes, it is at least a couple dozen while Apple provides the same equivalent functionality in only 2 (single/family pack). The overhead in managing all those different versions is mind-bongling.
janstett
Sep 15, 08:07 AM
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.
True (today anyway; in the NT era they were indeed separate platforms though. Which brings me to my next point..)
No, that is not true, in fact it couldn't be more untrue. Now, the 95 family (95/98/ME) was a totally different codebase. But with the NT family (NT/2000/XP) the client and the server were identical, even identical in distributed code. In fact there was a big scandal years ago where someone discovered the registry setting where you could turn NT Workstation into NT Server. Back then all that was different was the number of outbound IP connections and possibly the number of CPUs supported. All they were trying to do with Workstation was prevent you from using it as a server (thus the outbound IP limit) and at some point they didn't give you full-blown IIS on Workstation. That's it.
True (today anyway; in the NT era they were indeed separate platforms though. Which brings me to my next point..)
No, that is not true, in fact it couldn't be more untrue. Now, the 95 family (95/98/ME) was a totally different codebase. But with the NT family (NT/2000/XP) the client and the server were identical, even identical in distributed code. In fact there was a big scandal years ago where someone discovered the registry setting where you could turn NT Workstation into NT Server. Back then all that was different was the number of outbound IP connections and possibly the number of CPUs supported. All they were trying to do with Workstation was prevent you from using it as a server (thus the outbound IP limit) and at some point they didn't give you full-blown IIS on Workstation. That's it.
Thor74
Apr 25, 03:55 PM
I'm fine with the data storage on my phone of where I have been based on cell tower locations. It's up to me to protect and secure my own phone.
The reason I think this media blast again Apple is mainly BS is because 3 out of the 4 explanations of WHY this data collection is so Evil or Worrisome is based on some sort of "your dating partner could track your whereabouts" example. Huh? I've seen that example recycled at least 10 times in various tech sites.
So this would be 75% (my own numbers) less a big deal if tech bloggers were less concerned about getting busted for cheating around or going to places they said they weren't?
I know it is an over simplified scenario, but still, stop cheating, stop hitting the strip club or etc if you don't want to get busted. Better yet, break up with your partner and go crazy.
I do NOT like "Big Brother" looking into my business, but it's my ass if I lie or play around and I don't blame Apple, Google or anyone else for that if I get busted.
The people that complain about this security issue need to find a better main example for this genuine (but rather minor) security flaw IMO.
The reason I think this media blast again Apple is mainly BS is because 3 out of the 4 explanations of WHY this data collection is so Evil or Worrisome is based on some sort of "your dating partner could track your whereabouts" example. Huh? I've seen that example recycled at least 10 times in various tech sites.
So this would be 75% (my own numbers) less a big deal if tech bloggers were less concerned about getting busted for cheating around or going to places they said they weren't?
I know it is an over simplified scenario, but still, stop cheating, stop hitting the strip club or etc if you don't want to get busted. Better yet, break up with your partner and go crazy.
I do NOT like "Big Brother" looking into my business, but it's my ass if I lie or play around and I don't blame Apple, Google or anyone else for that if I get busted.
The people that complain about this security issue need to find a better main example for this genuine (but rather minor) security flaw IMO.
ChrisTX
Apr 8, 05:27 AM
Obviously you know little about retail and accounting.
Granted I work in a different type of retail, it seems illogical to lose a sale at any cost.
Granted I work in a different type of retail, it seems illogical to lose a sale at any cost.
Super Dave
Aug 7, 04:33 PM
I dont think the "Top Secret" stuff is really top secret. I think Apple needs some more time to develope a few things before releasing them out into the public. No reason to release buggy apps.
Remember, WWDC was pushed back this year. THey aren't done with Leopard just yet.
They certainly aren't done, but they're announcing it within the same length time frame as they did with Tiger if I recall.
I actually believed him on the "Top Secret" stuff. Every vista build changes, so it's good to not let too much out of the bag until Vista is either interface frozen or released.
David :cool:
Remember, WWDC was pushed back this year. THey aren't done with Leopard just yet.
They certainly aren't done, but they're announcing it within the same length time frame as they did with Tiger if I recall.
I actually believed him on the "Top Secret" stuff. Every vista build changes, so it's good to not let too much out of the bag until Vista is either interface frozen or released.
David :cool:
ugp
Mar 26, 03:03 PM
I would love to see Lion come as a Flash Drive instead of a Disc based media.
Install would be much faster than it would be from a disc. Flash memory costs are very cheap.
I am looking forward to Lion in general and will be happy to pay for the software instead of just a download via Torrent. I don't mind supporting Apple unlike I did with Windows.
Install would be much faster than it would be from a disc. Flash memory costs are very cheap.
I am looking forward to Lion in general and will be happy to pay for the software instead of just a download via Torrent. I don't mind supporting Apple unlike I did with Windows.
dethmaShine
Apr 6, 10:11 AM
For a programmer dealing with Terminal, Xcode, Netbeans, Eclipse, etc (not graphic intensive softwares), would this macbook air be a better deal than the 13/15" Macbook pro?
Anyone?
Anyone?
benthewraith
Nov 28, 08:18 PM
I haven't read all the post as yet, got to around post #50 but my sentiments pretty much reflect those of most posters.
However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.
If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple’s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.
Same logic me thinks…
It won't happen. The way I see it, Apple stands a greater chance of being forced to raise it's prices on the store.
However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.
If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple’s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.
Same logic me thinks…
It won't happen. The way I see it, Apple stands a greater chance of being forced to raise it's prices on the store.
relimw
Sep 13, 12:36 PM
How much more 'blind' do you want it? All the programmer has to do at this point is use multiple threads. Even if they don't, multiple cores will be automatically used for system and other processes.
Splitting one thread so that it ran cocurent with itself is a recipie for massive trouble. Mac OS X is about as blind as any system out there for the programmer. There may be some more optimizations that the system could make in it's own handling of multiprocessing, but from a programmer's perspective it doesn't matter how many cores the system has. (Unless you really want it to.)
Programming in pthreads is a bear (at least to me) an easier method would be nice. However, when I was looking up something today I came across OpenMP (http://www.openmp.org/) which seems to greatly simply setting up threads and the like. I suppose I was just thinking of run-time parallelization.
Splitting one thread so that it ran cocurent with itself is a recipie for massive trouble. Mac OS X is about as blind as any system out there for the programmer. There may be some more optimizations that the system could make in it's own handling of multiprocessing, but from a programmer's perspective it doesn't matter how many cores the system has. (Unless you really want it to.)
Programming in pthreads is a bear (at least to me) an easier method would be nice. However, when I was looking up something today I came across OpenMP (http://www.openmp.org/) which seems to greatly simply setting up threads and the like. I suppose I was just thinking of run-time parallelization.
Koufax80
Apr 25, 02:36 PM
Maybe I'm missing something, but so what if they can tell what cell phone tower you're by??? Are you really so important/ secrative that someone knowing your location is that big of a deal?
Moonlight
Aug 26, 08:14 PM
I just called Apple support, I was on hold for over 20 minutes, then I was disconnected. No wonder people are unhappy :mad: :( :confused:
bousozoku
Aug 7, 11:25 PM
Hi, this is just a question to the developers. Did you already get 10.5? I have the ADC Select membership but can�t find 10.5 in the download section. Please send me an email where I can find it. Thank you!
It seems as though I received previous distributions 3-4 weeks after WWDC but they weren't downloadable to Select members, only available in a physical package.
It seems as though I received previous distributions 3-4 weeks after WWDC but they weren't downloadable to Select members, only available in a physical package.
~Shard~
Jul 15, 12:37 AM
Personally I go the BTO route at Apple.com for my PowerMacs and downgrade all RAM to the minimum cost and buy my RAM from a trusted 3rd party vendor for a savings of at least 10% if not more so.
Exactly - this is one of the reasons I'm glad Apple is going with a minimum RAM configuration. I'd much rather buy RAM from a reputable 3rd party dealer than have to succumb myself to Apple's significant premiums. Always buy 3rd party, never from Apple. :cool:
I agree as I am waiting for the 8 core model with Leopard while I continue to limp along on the Quad G5.
Are you just going to hold out for a Dunnington PowerMac? :p ;)
Exactly - this is one of the reasons I'm glad Apple is going with a minimum RAM configuration. I'd much rather buy RAM from a reputable 3rd party dealer than have to succumb myself to Apple's significant premiums. Always buy 3rd party, never from Apple. :cool:
I agree as I am waiting for the 8 core model with Leopard while I continue to limp along on the Quad G5.
Are you just going to hold out for a Dunnington PowerMac? :p ;)
cgc
Jul 20, 02:45 PM
I think I'll still get the low-end Intel Tower in August/September, but I'm curious if the XEON 51xx chip could be replaced with a quad-core Intel chip.
TangoCharlie
Jul 20, 12:44 PM
I disagree. I think Apple will use Core 2 Duo (Conroe) in the iMac, and Merom in the MBP. The iMac could hold a G5, why not Conroe?
On top of that, you'll notice that a 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $70 less than the 1.83 GHz Yonah that's in the iMac now, $70 less than a 2 GHz Merom, and $200 less than a 2.16 GHz Merom, increasing Apple's profit margins on the iMac considerably or allowing a price drop- plus they can advertise it as a desktop processor.
In fact, even if Conroe was too hot (which I highly doubt, since the iMac had a G5), a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz still saves $70 over a 2 GHz Merom.
I don't disagree with your logic.... and in time I think the iMac will move to Conroe; However, the Merom is a drop-in replacement for the Yonah, and that fact alone suggests to me that Apple will upgrade the iMac to Merom first (WWDC). The very fact that Merom and Conroe will both be "Core 2 Duo" will let Apple pop in a Merom initially and then "upgrade" to Conroe with a mainboard upgrade at a later date. As you say, I don't think heat is an issue here.
Only time will tell. :)
On top of that, you'll notice that a 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $70 less than the 1.83 GHz Yonah that's in the iMac now, $70 less than a 2 GHz Merom, and $200 less than a 2.16 GHz Merom, increasing Apple's profit margins on the iMac considerably or allowing a price drop- plus they can advertise it as a desktop processor.
In fact, even if Conroe was too hot (which I highly doubt, since the iMac had a G5), a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz still saves $70 over a 2 GHz Merom.
I don't disagree with your logic.... and in time I think the iMac will move to Conroe; However, the Merom is a drop-in replacement for the Yonah, and that fact alone suggests to me that Apple will upgrade the iMac to Merom first (WWDC). The very fact that Merom and Conroe will both be "Core 2 Duo" will let Apple pop in a Merom initially and then "upgrade" to Conroe with a mainboard upgrade at a later date. As you say, I don't think heat is an issue here.
Only time will tell. :)
lars steenhoff
Apr 6, 05:01 PM
For the time being, the new ati macbook pro's won't work as fast with premiere pro, as they could have when premiere would use openCL, instead of Cuda.
Probably in the next version I guess, as openCL was not quite there yet when premiere CS5 was developed
Probably in the next version I guess, as openCL was not quite there yet when premiere CS5 was developed
bedifferent
Apr 10, 10:51 PM
Whether you think it's an issue or not is subjective. The guy I was replying to was implying that a different person worked on iMovie 08 and that same person was also behind the new Final Cut when in reality the lead architect has stayed the same throughout.
Oh I know, I was commenting on that, not you.
Oh I know, I was commenting on that, not you.
phairphan
Aug 26, 04:19 PM
Only problem with that is that a 2.33 GHz Merom chip will be fifty percent more expensive than a 2.16 GHz Yonah is today. So do you think Apple will increase prices of the MacBook Pro by $150 to $200 or reduce their profit?
I believe the 2.33 GHz Merom chip debuted at the same price as the 2.16 GHz Yonah when it was released. The prices of MBPs certainly haven't fallen. Apple has just been enjoying the extra profits from Intel's price drops of the past few months.
I believe the 2.33 GHz Merom chip debuted at the same price as the 2.16 GHz Yonah when it was released. The prices of MBPs certainly haven't fallen. Apple has just been enjoying the extra profits from Intel's price drops of the past few months.