Evangelion
Aug 17, 03:58 AM
But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
There were handful of benchmarks. If we disregard the non-universal apps, we get this:
Xeon is a lot faster in iMovie
In FCP it's a bit faster
in FileMaker it's A LOT faster
in Cinebench it's considerably faster
Are those really such a bad results? The apps that it was slower in (but not by much) were running through emulation, is that a fair comparison?
Looking at the other reviews around the net, it becomes quite obvious that apart from few apps, Mac Pro is considerably faster tham PowerMac. In compiling for example, it walks all over the G5
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
There were handful of benchmarks. If we disregard the non-universal apps, we get this:
Xeon is a lot faster in iMovie
In FCP it's a bit faster
in FileMaker it's A LOT faster
in Cinebench it's considerably faster
Are those really such a bad results? The apps that it was slower in (but not by much) were running through emulation, is that a fair comparison?
Looking at the other reviews around the net, it becomes quite obvious that apart from few apps, Mac Pro is considerably faster tham PowerMac. In compiling for example, it walks all over the G5
janmike34
Apr 11, 03:37 PM
If we're waiting until September for PRODUCTION, then I think we'll see something great in the late fall or early winter.
I just want a leap with iOS 5. My take on notifications:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqWO6VkJh-0
I just want a leap with iOS 5. My take on notifications:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqWO6VkJh-0
danielpicasso
Mar 26, 01:33 PM
Some of the comments on this board are inane.
1) Launchpad is the selling point...Really? You think Versions, Resume, Mission Control, OS wide Full Screen App support are not selling points?
2) $129 is too much. This one cracks me up. Apple is bundling a $500 product into the OS (and other OS based servers are far more expensive) and people think $129 is too much?
3) When has Apple released an OS, and not shown new features on the final release keynote?
thanks for keeping the inmates sane...... why would Apple let their OS be anything but perfect
1) Launchpad is the selling point...Really? You think Versions, Resume, Mission Control, OS wide Full Screen App support are not selling points?
2) $129 is too much. This one cracks me up. Apple is bundling a $500 product into the OS (and other OS based servers are far more expensive) and people think $129 is too much?
3) When has Apple released an OS, and not shown new features on the final release keynote?
thanks for keeping the inmates sane...... why would Apple let their OS be anything but perfect
DaveP
Aug 6, 05:34 PM
I find it amusing how optimistic Mac users are. Every once in a while Apple has an event where they really wow with product releases, but seems like 9 out of 10 people are predicting amazing releases. By the way, I'm not criticizing in any way, and being optimistic is good.
I'm predicting Steve will annouce his retirement :eek: :p
Probably about as likely as some of the wish lists we've seen, haha.
I'm predicting Steve will annouce his retirement :eek: :p
Probably about as likely as some of the wish lists we've seen, haha.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
cjc81
Sep 19, 11:31 AM
I don't think you've got anything to worry about there...
Looks like your order is going to be delayed, in your favour =)
Looks like your order is going to be delayed, in your favour =)
Cougarcat
Mar 26, 07:09 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
How does Rosetta hold back forward progress exactly? It's just small extension for the OS. It's not like it's Classic.
How does Rosetta hold back forward progress exactly? It's just small extension for the OS. It's not like it's Classic.
bigandy
Jul 14, 03:52 PM
the size and weight of the power supply makes it damn stupid to put in the top.
top heavy is just idiotic.
i'd love to see dual optical drive bays and the same basic design as the G5. it's a great design, so why the need for change in the first place... :rolleyes:
top heavy is just idiotic.
i'd love to see dual optical drive bays and the same basic design as the G5. it's a great design, so why the need for change in the first place... :rolleyes:
iMrNiceGuy0023
Jun 15, 10:34 AM
are you able to reserve more than one phone on a family plan??
bushido
Apr 12, 08:44 AM
just got sold to the HTC Sensation LOVE IT! u could wish the 5th would get half of it
tripjammer
Apr 11, 01:05 PM
Not sure I believe the rumors, but as long as my 3G still works, I'll wait. $200 every 3 years is better than $200 every 2 years.
That is why you sell your iphone every year and it does not cost you to upgrade. ATT basically allows you to upgrade at the lowest price every year.
Its all about timing.
That is why you sell your iphone every year and it does not cost you to upgrade. ATT basically allows you to upgrade at the lowest price every year.
Its all about timing.
Silentwave
Jul 14, 09:34 PM
Either way, between the case redesign rumor and the Conroe vs. Woodcrest rumor, looks like WWDC will really boost the credibility of one rumors site and smash the other's credibility to pieces (unless they're both wrong).
No, I don't think its possible to either make ThinkSecret's credibility either better or worse without disrupting the balance of the space/time continuum. Unless of course there are powerbook G5s on Tuesday August 8th during WWDC. In that case, the universe will vanish instantly and be replaced with something even more inexplicable.
No, I don't think its possible to either make ThinkSecret's credibility either better or worse without disrupting the balance of the space/time continuum. Unless of course there are powerbook G5s on Tuesday August 8th during WWDC. In that case, the universe will vanish instantly and be replaced with something even more inexplicable.
4God
Jul 27, 10:00 AM
My credit card is melting just thinking about WWDC. :D
swingerofbirch
Aug 26, 05:23 PM
This is interesting, BUT, from what I know, Intel announced the desktop (Conroe) Core 2 Duo proccessor on July 27, and as far as I know, no Conroe systems are shipping right now, almost a month later.
Dell has announced some Conroe systems that you can order, but as far as I know they aren't readily shipping yet.
Dell has announced some Conroe systems that you can order, but as far as I know they aren't readily shipping yet.
Lollypop
Jul 28, 04:07 AM
I would really like to se a mid range mac, not really fond of the illustrations above but the extra expansion of the pro line would be apreciated but at a more affordable price. I use a few older powermacs for servers but I really would like something with a bit more processing power... :D and something with a bit more longevity, something like a nice new Core 2 Duo Extreme! LOL
Cory Bauer
Apr 12, 08:00 PM
Yeah no kidding...they should have taken the "New" off the page at least a year ago.
No kidding, right? Also, fancy meeting you here, Jester :cool:
No kidding, right? Also, fancy meeting you here, Jester :cool:
penter
Jul 27, 02:06 PM
i literally let out a high pitched "aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh" when i saw this. Im really excited about it, yet so sad that i wont be able to enjoy it since i just bought my new mac a month ago (hence the "aaaahhhh")
this summarizes my post: :) but :(
this summarizes my post: :) but :(
edenwaith
Jul 14, 04:30 PM
I'm not concerned so much if this rumor is true or not, but I've never fully understood the need for more than one optical drives for most of the time. At work I've occasionally needed more than one optical drive to create back ups of software CDs, but that's about it. At home, however, the need just isn't there. The retarted Dell we have at home has two optical drives because Dell was too cheap to put in a single combo DVD-ROM/CD-RW. Instead they put in a CD-RW and a CD-ROM (it was SUPPOSED to have come with a DVD-ROM, but they didn't put it in). Times like that are just dumb.
Personally, I'd opt for more hard drive space. There was one PM model that supported up to four internal hard drives, I believe.
Personally, I'd opt for more hard drive space. There was one PM model that supported up to four internal hard drives, I believe.
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 2, 04:30 PM
I love that i won a mini in the mini-only race. I'll never touch either of my minis again.
sjo
Aug 11, 03:44 PM
I don't need to travel to know that >99% mobile phone penetration is complete BS. Are you trying to say that EVERYONE in Europe has a cell phone?
Yes. EVERYONE. If you dont believe me, maybe you believe the economist:
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=4351974
Please note that the graph is about three years old. Nowadays a lot more of the countries are over 100%.
Yes. EVERYONE. If you dont believe me, maybe you believe the economist:
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=4351974
Please note that the graph is about three years old. Nowadays a lot more of the countries are over 100%.
xxBURT0Nxx
Apr 7, 11:11 AM
No indeed, it's not. Intel forced the whole OEM industry to use their IGP, not just Apple. ;)
No matter how you slice it, for some applications, IGPs make sense. Intel cut out the competence from that market with their shenanigans. And now the consumers pays for it with sub-par graphics processors.
haha clever, i'm not really arguing with you, i rather agree with what you are saying, i just don't put the blame on intel. Sure the whole debacle may have pursuaded apple to just use the IGP, but i think it's more of apples decision to make things as thin as possible that left out a dedicated gpu in favor of the IGP.
If apple really didn't want their customers to have to use intels graphics, they could have easily gotten around this, they just may have had to do some design changes they weren't willing to make. just my .02 but either way i wouldn't consider the 320m of old to be very high end either. If you are looking to game or need a high end graphics card you should stick to desktop, perhaps even PC over mac.
No matter how you slice it, for some applications, IGPs make sense. Intel cut out the competence from that market with their shenanigans. And now the consumers pays for it with sub-par graphics processors.
haha clever, i'm not really arguing with you, i rather agree with what you are saying, i just don't put the blame on intel. Sure the whole debacle may have pursuaded apple to just use the IGP, but i think it's more of apples decision to make things as thin as possible that left out a dedicated gpu in favor of the IGP.
If apple really didn't want their customers to have to use intels graphics, they could have easily gotten around this, they just may have had to do some design changes they weren't willing to make. just my .02 but either way i wouldn't consider the 320m of old to be very high end either. If you are looking to game or need a high end graphics card you should stick to desktop, perhaps even PC over mac.
Chundles
Jul 20, 11:35 AM
any talk of a quad core merom or mobile cpu?
Here's a top article on Intel's future plans:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/top_secret_intel_processor_plans_uncovered/
Here's a top article on Intel's future plans:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/top_secret_intel_processor_plans_uncovered/
Chundles
Jul 20, 09:44 AM
Just stating 'I knew that' I just used it as an example. Chundles gets confused easily so I have to make things simple. Hi Chundles :D
You'll keep...:p
You'll keep...:p
alent1234
Mar 23, 07:23 AM
To be fair, every smartphone on the market is an iPhone clone and every tablet an iPad clone, so it is all related to Apple in that way.
a lot of the iphone engineers are former palm employees
a lot of the iphone engineers are former palm employees
