MacinDoc
Jul 30, 06:23 PM
Vista ships early 2007 and way preceeds the Core 3 launch. :rolleyes:
That is, Bill Gates has stated that there is an 80% chance that Vista will ship in early which, when multiplied by the 80% probability that his estimate is something smelly that comes out of the backside of a bull (and only 20% chance that it is actually true), gives a 16% chance that Vista will REALLY ship in early 2007. ;)
That is, Bill Gates has stated that there is an 80% chance that Vista will ship in early which, when multiplied by the 80% probability that his estimate is something smelly that comes out of the backside of a bull (and only 20% chance that it is actually true), gives a 16% chance that Vista will REALLY ship in early 2007. ;)
regandarcy
Apr 6, 04:06 PM
I've never liked backlit keys and have it turned off on my MBPs. I find it annoying, personally, but I do touch type so I'm never looking at the keys. I totally understand those who do want that feature (and Apple should add it to the MBA because it appears to be important for a enough people), but personally I don't care for it and am glad I can turn it off.
I'm with you buddy. I totally don't need it either. Even if I was a hunt and peck guy, I could see keyboard fine in a dark room just by the light of the screen so I don't see the point. But that's just me. Personally I'd rather not have it drain my battery.
But since I am such a good touch typist, I don't have to worry about that. :-)
But to each their own.
I'm with you buddy. I totally don't need it either. Even if I was a hunt and peck guy, I could see keyboard fine in a dark room just by the light of the screen so I don't see the point. But that's just me. Personally I'd rather not have it drain my battery.
But since I am such a good touch typist, I don't have to worry about that. :-)
But to each their own.
Sydde
Mar 20, 06:56 PM
But they have worked so hard, all these decades, to diminish the "one man, one vote" to something much less than that.
Well, you see, it is not about the one-man-one-vote thing. That works just fine. You just have to make sure you keep the wrong men from voting.
Well, you see, it is not about the one-man-one-vote thing. That works just fine. You just have to make sure you keep the wrong men from voting.
Multimedia
Aug 18, 08:53 AM
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/mac%20pro_081406100848/12798.png
I think this speaks for itself.
When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.
Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.
Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up :)That chart speaks for NOTHING. Comparing a Mac Pro to old 2004 single core Dual G5 PowerMacs is a completely irrelevant and spurious "test". This entire review is flawed by the missing Quad G5. BTW I don't use H.264 at all ever.
I think this speaks for itself.
When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.
Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.
Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up :)That chart speaks for NOTHING. Comparing a Mac Pro to old 2004 single core Dual G5 PowerMacs is a completely irrelevant and spurious "test". This entire review is flawed by the missing Quad G5. BTW I don't use H.264 at all ever.
iStudentUK
Apr 11, 11:26 AM
They should stick to the June update each year. I know it may not be their fault but Apple need to keep the iPhone up to date, otherwise they will lose ground. Mobile phones are very competitive.
daneoni
Apr 6, 07:49 AM
Aperture 4?
iphones4evry1
Jun 8, 10:51 PM
I'm wondering though, what would be the advantages/disadvantages to buying it at Radio Shack vs AT&T vs The Apple Store? Once I have the item purchased, will I notice any sort of difference what-so-ever?
Cheers.
Honestly, it shouldn't make a difference. Whenever I go into an Apple Store to get help/support with my iPhone3G, they always help me, regardless.
I purchased my iPhone3G at one Apple Store, and when it started giving me problems, I took it to a different Apple Store and they replaced it with a brand new phone. Of course, it's possible that because I had bought it at an Apple Store, it mattered, but generally, I've sensed that regardless of where you bought it, because it is an Apple product (obviously, plus your serial number in your settings menu), Apple Stores treat you like any other Apple customer. (I recommend you call your Apple Store and ask them "If I buy it at Radio Shack, will the Apple Store provide full support and replacement, as if I had purchased it at the Apple Store?")
The drawback... if you needed to get support for the phone, you'd have to drive to an Apple Store (that's a long way for you, and none of the AT&T guys around my house (about 10 AT&T stores) know anything about service/support for the iPhone - they just tell me to go to the Apple Store.
Mine began freezing within the first 15 days. Went to ATT and they gave me so much trouble when trying to exchange it. They ended up not wanting to exchange it for me and said they don't take returns ... SO then i went to apple store, even though i bought it from ATT, they quickly opened up a new one and gave me a brand new one, no questions asked (just their standard serial number checks).
Earendil, there you go. Buy it on Apple's website, and if you ever have a problem, you can hop into your car and drive 90min up to the Apple store.
.
Cheers.
Honestly, it shouldn't make a difference. Whenever I go into an Apple Store to get help/support with my iPhone3G, they always help me, regardless.
I purchased my iPhone3G at one Apple Store, and when it started giving me problems, I took it to a different Apple Store and they replaced it with a brand new phone. Of course, it's possible that because I had bought it at an Apple Store, it mattered, but generally, I've sensed that regardless of where you bought it, because it is an Apple product (obviously, plus your serial number in your settings menu), Apple Stores treat you like any other Apple customer. (I recommend you call your Apple Store and ask them "If I buy it at Radio Shack, will the Apple Store provide full support and replacement, as if I had purchased it at the Apple Store?")
The drawback... if you needed to get support for the phone, you'd have to drive to an Apple Store (that's a long way for you, and none of the AT&T guys around my house (about 10 AT&T stores) know anything about service/support for the iPhone - they just tell me to go to the Apple Store.
Mine began freezing within the first 15 days. Went to ATT and they gave me so much trouble when trying to exchange it. They ended up not wanting to exchange it for me and said they don't take returns ... SO then i went to apple store, even though i bought it from ATT, they quickly opened up a new one and gave me a brand new one, no questions asked (just their standard serial number checks).
Earendil, there you go. Buy it on Apple's website, and if you ever have a problem, you can hop into your car and drive 90min up to the Apple store.
.
infidel69
Mar 31, 02:37 PM
Lol, the fragmentation that "doesnt exist".
I knew it would bite them in the ass someday.
How is it biting them in the ass? Android is the fastest growing OS with a larger share than IOS. I think it's been a very succesfull strategy.
I knew it would bite them in the ass someday.
How is it biting them in the ass? Android is the fastest growing OS with a larger share than IOS. I think it's been a very succesfull strategy.
thebeans
Apr 27, 10:04 AM
A lot of people are upset over this. But, no one seems to care that the US Government can snoop on any electronic communication it wants for well over 10 years now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_(signals_intelligence)
Data transmissions, cell phone calls, you name it. I think we're trying to cook the wrong goose if you ask me.
When I was in college we got a new professor. He had retired from the Navy. Intelligence division actually. His job during his last years in NI was to monitor email communications. Yea, he read your email. Not literally every one of course and there were (are) many, many working on this but in a nutshell, yes the government does read your email. Do I care? Nope. Got nothing to hide and if they want to read emails of me asking my wife what she wants for supper or telling her how my day went, what do I care?
Data transmissions, cell phone calls, you name it. I think we're trying to cook the wrong goose if you ask me.
When I was in college we got a new professor. He had retired from the Navy. Intelligence division actually. His job during his last years in NI was to monitor email communications. Yea, he read your email. Not literally every one of course and there were (are) many, many working on this but in a nutshell, yes the government does read your email. Do I care? Nope. Got nothing to hide and if they want to read emails of me asking my wife what she wants for supper or telling her how my day went, what do I care?
RedTomato
Aug 11, 08:26 PM
I probably won't buy a phone without GPS capabilities. I will pay for the option, however.
Why not just ring someone and ask where you are? Or wait for the guy on the seat next to you to ring his girlfriend?
Why not just ring someone and ask where you are? Or wait for the guy on the seat next to you to ring his girlfriend?
BRLawyer
Aug 6, 02:10 PM
"The Name Mac Pro is our Trademark, not Apple's"
good luck for you.
I would not put up a fight against a giant like Apple.
Plus, I don't see having a computer named Mac Pro would interfere with your business in a bad way. Actually, I think it would be good thing for you.
It's not relevant, the marks are registered in different fields of activity...if these guys are real, they don't have a case anyway.
good luck for you.
I would not put up a fight against a giant like Apple.
Plus, I don't see having a computer named Mac Pro would interfere with your business in a bad way. Actually, I think it would be good thing for you.
It's not relevant, the marks are registered in different fields of activity...if these guys are real, they don't have a case anyway.
Koadoc
Nov 29, 08:27 AM
Just goes to show you how corrupt the music business really is!:mad:
CaoCao
Mar 3, 11:03 PM
If that's what you want to believe, fine. Respect my belief that it's perfectly fine, and stop making laws against me.
no one is preventing you from living with the person you love or having sex with him
Surely. Why do you believe you have any right or authority to dictate what two consulting adults should do or not?
And, if you do believe you (or a religious book) have that authority, then may I make the following statement to be equally as valid as yours:
Bill McEnaney should only engage in homosexual, sexually active relationships, and should never be engaged in heterosexual relationships, much less any that are anything but platonic.
Do you believe in the validity of my statement. Why or why not?
I look forward to your response.
Invalid because it endorses something that could cause the collapse of society
no one is preventing you from living with the person you love or having sex with him
Surely. Why do you believe you have any right or authority to dictate what two consulting adults should do or not?
And, if you do believe you (or a religious book) have that authority, then may I make the following statement to be equally as valid as yours:
Bill McEnaney should only engage in homosexual, sexually active relationships, and should never be engaged in heterosexual relationships, much less any that are anything but platonic.
Do you believe in the validity of my statement. Why or why not?
I look forward to your response.
Invalid because it endorses something that could cause the collapse of society
guzhogi
Sep 13, 08:53 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!
This is a bit of a chicken and the egg problem. Hardware companies don't want to release multicore hardware b/c no software is out to support it and software people don't want to ship multiprocessor software b/c no multiproc hardware is out. Since there are a few multiproc computers out now, some software companies might start multithreading their apps, most people probably don't have it them yet.
Also, some apps won't really benefit from being multithreaded. Take a basic calculator. Why would you really need it to take advantage of multiproc computers? It isn't that processor heavy to do 2+2. AV software, like iTunes, Final Cut Pro, etc., could greatly benefit from multiproc systems. One core can do the audio while the other does the video for FC or iTunes could use one core for playing music and the other for ripping.
Something I'd like to see is to have AV stuff offloaded to the sound or graphics card to speed it up. I've heard of a company called Aspex Semiconductors (www.aspex-semi.com) that designs PCI cards that speed up MPEG encoding. Might be nice for video pros.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
This is a bit of a chicken and the egg problem. Hardware companies don't want to release multicore hardware b/c no software is out to support it and software people don't want to ship multiprocessor software b/c no multiproc hardware is out. Since there are a few multiproc computers out now, some software companies might start multithreading their apps, most people probably don't have it them yet.
Also, some apps won't really benefit from being multithreaded. Take a basic calculator. Why would you really need it to take advantage of multiproc computers? It isn't that processor heavy to do 2+2. AV software, like iTunes, Final Cut Pro, etc., could greatly benefit from multiproc systems. One core can do the audio while the other does the video for FC or iTunes could use one core for playing music and the other for ripping.
Something I'd like to see is to have AV stuff offloaded to the sound or graphics card to speed it up. I've heard of a company called Aspex Semiconductors (www.aspex-semi.com) that designs PCI cards that speed up MPEG encoding. Might be nice for video pros.
Chundles
Jul 20, 11:46 AM
Sorry I don't see that happening... Apple has basically always given developers a few months (to several months) lead time with the next major version of Mac OS X. That has taken place yet... so I don't see it being released at WWDC 2006.
He was referring to my post in which I was referring to MWSF '07, not the WWDC.
I still don't think we'll se a full release at MWSF but I think the date will be announced.
He was referring to my post in which I was referring to MWSF '07, not the WWDC.
I still don't think we'll se a full release at MWSF but I think the date will be announced.
Multimedia
Jul 27, 11:48 PM
Duplicate.
iliketyla
Mar 31, 08:46 PM
This is where the Android "community" is going to split.
The ones we've heard from today don't give a crap about "open" or "closed" or Google or anything else other than the fact that Android is not Apple and is stealing some sales from Apple. They'll defend whatever Google does, because all they want is a platform that's not by Apple to take over the mobile space.
The true believers in the "open" propaganda, as ridiculous as it is and as untrue as it's always been, are probably still in a state of shock. By tomorrow they'll split into two warring camps. One will defend everything Google does because they perceive—wrongly of course—that Android is still in some indefinable way more open than iOS, and they'll blow that little invisible kernel of "openness" up until that's all they can see.
The other camp will be viciously angry at Google's betrayal of the True Religion™ and will be flailing around for some other messiah to deliver them from the "Walled Garden" of Apple and now, Android. These are the people who were saying the other day that "Motorola could rot" with their own OS.
Any suggestions on who the zealots will turn to in their hour of despair? I honestly can't think of a candidate, but then I'm not nuts—at least not that way.
Yeah! That's what'll happen!
Or they'll do further research and realize that the implications in this SINGLE ARTICLE might not be 100% true.
To the everyday user this means NOTHING as they have no knowledge of what open truly means, and therefore can't take advantage of it.
To the users who actually have the knowhow to utilize open source operating systems, this might mean a minor hinderance, but not a complete game changer.
And for clarification, the former is the vast majority.
Did no one notice the obvious bias in this article? It's slanted, and the author clearly thinks that Google has been wrong this entire time.
The ones we've heard from today don't give a crap about "open" or "closed" or Google or anything else other than the fact that Android is not Apple and is stealing some sales from Apple. They'll defend whatever Google does, because all they want is a platform that's not by Apple to take over the mobile space.
The true believers in the "open" propaganda, as ridiculous as it is and as untrue as it's always been, are probably still in a state of shock. By tomorrow they'll split into two warring camps. One will defend everything Google does because they perceive—wrongly of course—that Android is still in some indefinable way more open than iOS, and they'll blow that little invisible kernel of "openness" up until that's all they can see.
The other camp will be viciously angry at Google's betrayal of the True Religion™ and will be flailing around for some other messiah to deliver them from the "Walled Garden" of Apple and now, Android. These are the people who were saying the other day that "Motorola could rot" with their own OS.
Any suggestions on who the zealots will turn to in their hour of despair? I honestly can't think of a candidate, but then I'm not nuts—at least not that way.
Yeah! That's what'll happen!
Or they'll do further research and realize that the implications in this SINGLE ARTICLE might not be 100% true.
To the everyday user this means NOTHING as they have no knowledge of what open truly means, and therefore can't take advantage of it.
To the users who actually have the knowhow to utilize open source operating systems, this might mean a minor hinderance, but not a complete game changer.
And for clarification, the former is the vast majority.
Did no one notice the obvious bias in this article? It's slanted, and the author clearly thinks that Google has been wrong this entire time.
NAG
Mar 31, 03:39 PM
What the heck is this? The "Steve was right" month?
Pathetic Dell and HP, desperate Microsoft, Samsung aka Mr. "Smoothbastic", Google inhibiting fragmentation, the very one, which does NOT exist, really...
who is next? Oh, i have got it - Adobe. So come on, resistance is futile.
Adobe showing how the iPad is only for consumption and not worth their time. (http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/03/30/adobe.photoshop.for.ipad.to.get.layers/)
Pathetic Dell and HP, desperate Microsoft, Samsung aka Mr. "Smoothbastic", Google inhibiting fragmentation, the very one, which does NOT exist, really...
who is next? Oh, i have got it - Adobe. So come on, resistance is futile.
Adobe showing how the iPad is only for consumption and not worth their time. (http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/03/30/adobe.photoshop.for.ipad.to.get.layers/)
manu chao
Apr 25, 02:23 PM
What the heck would ANYONE do to cause harm to you by knowing what cell towers you ping off of?
Anybody doing credit card fraud would have a somewhat better chance of staying undetected if they knew you usually whereabouts. Credit card companies use highly evolved software to track if a CC transaction is unusual.
I think it is save to assume that most people do not store their credit card number in plain text on their computer. If some piece of software (eg, a browser) would do this, wouldn't this be something you preferred it would not do?
Anybody doing credit card fraud would have a somewhat better chance of staying undetected if they knew you usually whereabouts. Credit card companies use highly evolved software to track if a CC transaction is unusual.
I think it is save to assume that most people do not store their credit card number in plain text on their computer. If some piece of software (eg, a browser) would do this, wouldn't this be something you preferred it would not do?
Evangelion
Sep 19, 06:17 AM
Key word being DESKTOPS.
Again: NT was widely used on desktops. Maybe not by your Average Joe, but LOTS of people used it on the desktop. I used NT-workstation back when I studied, my friend used NT on his PC, lots and lots of companies ran NT, the list goes on. Hell, there were propably an order of magnitude more NT-desktops out there that there were Macs of any type!
I still don't know personally anyone who uses OS X. Does that mean that no-one uses it?
MP machines were server based long before they were included in desktops. I'd like to see where people had dual Xeon based DESKTOPS 'cause I've never seen it.
There were plenty of people running SMP-systems. I personally knew two guys who had SMP-PC's. Just because you haven't seen anyone use one, does not mean that they weren't there.
Again: NT was widely used on desktops. Maybe not by your Average Joe, but LOTS of people used it on the desktop. I used NT-workstation back when I studied, my friend used NT on his PC, lots and lots of companies ran NT, the list goes on. Hell, there were propably an order of magnitude more NT-desktops out there that there were Macs of any type!
I still don't know personally anyone who uses OS X. Does that mean that no-one uses it?
MP machines were server based long before they were included in desktops. I'd like to see where people had dual Xeon based DESKTOPS 'cause I've never seen it.
There were plenty of people running SMP-systems. I personally knew two guys who had SMP-PC's. Just because you haven't seen anyone use one, does not mean that they weren't there.
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
whatever
Sep 13, 12:41 PM
All the people that just coughed up $3k for a quad core MacPro.
I'm one of those people who dropped $4K for a quad core MacPro and basically I'm happy that I did. It blows away everything else that is out there today and will be the top performing Mac until 2007. Apple will not be releasing an upgrade to the Mac Pro this year. No matter what anyone says.
Why you might ask, well they don't need to!
But what if the competition releases these super fast machines, won't Apple be left behind. No! What OS will these machines be running, Windows XP. One of the things that seperates Apple from everyone else is their OS. They have an OS which takes full advantage (important word is full) of the hardware. It's the big advantage that they have over Dell and HP, they create the software that runs on the computer.
So if I want to run Final Cut Pro as fast as possible on an optiomized machine, then I'll have to run it on a Mac. Alright, that's a bad example, but in a way it's not, because a lot of the people buying Mac Pros also live in Apple's Pro apps.
The next new computer we'll see from Apple anytime soon will be the MacBook Pro which will be redesigned (featuring the MacBook's keyboard), upgrades to the MacBook won't happen until January (however Apple may try to get them out in December).
Apple's goal is to have everything 64-Bit before Leopard is uncaged.
I'm one of those people who dropped $4K for a quad core MacPro and basically I'm happy that I did. It blows away everything else that is out there today and will be the top performing Mac until 2007. Apple will not be releasing an upgrade to the Mac Pro this year. No matter what anyone says.
Why you might ask, well they don't need to!
But what if the competition releases these super fast machines, won't Apple be left behind. No! What OS will these machines be running, Windows XP. One of the things that seperates Apple from everyone else is their OS. They have an OS which takes full advantage (important word is full) of the hardware. It's the big advantage that they have over Dell and HP, they create the software that runs on the computer.
So if I want to run Final Cut Pro as fast as possible on an optiomized machine, then I'll have to run it on a Mac. Alright, that's a bad example, but in a way it's not, because a lot of the people buying Mac Pros also live in Apple's Pro apps.
The next new computer we'll see from Apple anytime soon will be the MacBook Pro which will be redesigned (featuring the MacBook's keyboard), upgrades to the MacBook won't happen until January (however Apple may try to get them out in December).
Apple's goal is to have everything 64-Bit before Leopard is uncaged.
unlinked
Apr 6, 04:51 PM
BTW... the Xoom at the Best Buy here is broken... been that way for two weeks now according to the sales guy.
If the sales are so bad why don't they just replace it from the stock they have?
If the sales are so bad why don't they just replace it from the stock they have?
zero2dash
Sep 14, 08:33 AM
Yes. Windows NT was running on machines with eight processors several years before OS X was even released.
Windows supported 64 bit platforms and dual core CPUs long before OS X did.
On the server side.
Nevertheless, ok. Windows did it first.
That's probably because you're not interested in reading anything that might portray Microsoft in a non-negative light.
Couldn't be farther from the truth. I have no problem with Microsoft or Windows, evident by the fact that I've ran their operating systems for the last 10 years. I have a problem with all the crap they're putting in Vista, but otherwise - Win2k and XP Pro have left me primarily trouble-free.
Windows supported 64 bit platforms and dual core CPUs long before OS X did.
On the server side.
Nevertheless, ok. Windows did it first.
That's probably because you're not interested in reading anything that might portray Microsoft in a non-negative light.
Couldn't be farther from the truth. I have no problem with Microsoft or Windows, evident by the fact that I've ran their operating systems for the last 10 years. I have a problem with all the crap they're putting in Vista, but otherwise - Win2k and XP Pro have left me primarily trouble-free.
