onigami
Apr 10, 08:51 PM
They did it in 2007... I was there.
Back when Myspace was cool. (http://www.myspace.com/studiomusic1/blog/253736149)
Myspace was never cool.
Okay, okay, so they have done NAB (they've never done AES, though, that I'm certain). But still: They pulled out of everything in the last couple years. Why come back to NAB? Why not just do a small-scale announcement outside of NAB's timeframe so as to maximize press?
Also, nobody answered my initial question. Why the idle timer? There's no point!
Back when Myspace was cool. (http://www.myspace.com/studiomusic1/blog/253736149)
Myspace was never cool.
Okay, okay, so they have done NAB (they've never done AES, though, that I'm certain). But still: They pulled out of everything in the last couple years. Why come back to NAB? Why not just do a small-scale announcement outside of NAB's timeframe so as to maximize press?
Also, nobody answered my initial question. Why the idle timer? There's no point!
spicyapple
Nov 28, 07:08 PM
All the more reasons to boycott the buying of Zunes. Consumers need to vote with your wallets and send a message to companies like Universal who treat customers as pirates. Ugh.
wiestlingjr
Jun 9, 07:23 PM
Bibbz,
I have a couple questions.. I want to preorder with radioshack. I am NOT the primary account holder, but I am an authorized user. I also know the last 4 digits of the account holders social. Will this be a problem when picking up the phone?
I also have a FAN account. Will these be a problem?
I have a couple questions.. I want to preorder with radioshack. I am NOT the primary account holder, but I am an authorized user. I also know the last 4 digits of the account holders social. Will this be a problem when picking up the phone?
I also have a FAN account. Will these be a problem?
cyberdogl2
Aug 27, 06:27 PM
Fair enough, and I won't argue any more about it. I can't think of anything more tedious than a debate about whether a joke is funny or not...:)
Which, to me, is pretty funny.
Which, to me, is pretty funny.
H. Flower
Apr 12, 11:40 AM
The insufficient content shouldn't pop up at random, or there is a bug. It pops up when there is insufficient content for a transition. Some transitions like crossfade are centered at the end/starting point of a clip. So it expands past/before this point, hence the need of additional content in the file.
I didn't know about that multicore issue with Compressor when launched directly from the timeline. I suspect an issue with your setup. Compressor does make good use of my 4 cores on mpeg2 and I never set up Qmaster.
I get "insufficient content" when my source isn't as long as my in and outs on the timeline, which can occur fairly often. I've used 5 other edit programs in my lifetime, and each one would lay the source on the timeline starting from the in point regardless. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the message is an error.
"Cannot split a dissolve" - again, not a problem in other suites. Yes, I know there is a dissolve there. Yes, I want the program to split it. I'm the editor :)
I didn't know about that multicore issue with Compressor when launched directly from the timeline. I suspect an issue with your setup. Compressor does make good use of my 4 cores on mpeg2 and I never set up Qmaster.
I get "insufficient content" when my source isn't as long as my in and outs on the timeline, which can occur fairly often. I've used 5 other edit programs in my lifetime, and each one would lay the source on the timeline starting from the in point regardless. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the message is an error.
"Cannot split a dissolve" - again, not a problem in other suites. Yes, I know there is a dissolve there. Yes, I want the program to split it. I'm the editor :)
TheKrillr
Aug 27, 08:19 PM
Are you sure that discount applies to the NEW Merom based Macs - I don't think so?
I would assume so. The promotion applies to the Mac Pros i believe, and thats new hardware.
I would assume so. The promotion applies to the Mac Pros i believe, and thats new hardware.
Blackforge
Apr 6, 04:45 PM
Unfortunately the Xoom (or any Android device) doesn't support Windows Authentication in the default browser. Quite a few Enterprises use on internal websites, etc. Firefox for Android supports it, but last I heard, it wasn't compatible with the newer processors in the tablets.
Puts a damper in a lot of enterprise positioning they could have done.
iPad/iPhone supports it though..
Puts a damper in a lot of enterprise positioning they could have done.
iPad/iPhone supports it though..
63dot
Apr 25, 02:16 PM
Law is not justice, and one of the few absolutes in this shaky profession is that if a company is big and doing well, then they are a target, both to plaintiffs and to the lawyers who cash in over these attacks on Apple.
Apple will probably have to pay out some sort of millions over this, and for Apple, it's the price of doing business. Hey Apple, welcome to the territory that once belonged to the Microsofts and Dells of this industry. When suits this big and frivolous come out, it shows Apple has reached a prime level of success. My old contracts professor called this the deep pocket theory and the frivolous lawsuit we tackled that night was one just as ridiculous but against Dell, who was on the rise for #1 at the time and it went all the way to the Supreme Court and took years and many tens of millions of dollars to iron out. Expect this suit to be ugly.
Apple will probably have to pay out some sort of millions over this, and for Apple, it's the price of doing business. Hey Apple, welcome to the territory that once belonged to the Microsofts and Dells of this industry. When suits this big and frivolous come out, it shows Apple has reached a prime level of success. My old contracts professor called this the deep pocket theory and the frivolous lawsuit we tackled that night was one just as ridiculous but against Dell, who was on the rise for #1 at the time and it went all the way to the Supreme Court and took years and many tens of millions of dollars to iron out. Expect this suit to be ugly.
janstett
Sep 13, 01:11 PM
Sheesh...just when I'm already high up enough on Apple for innovating, they throw even more leaps and bounds in there to put themselves even further ahead. I can't wait 'til my broke @$$ can finally get the money to buy a Mac and chuck all my Windows machines out the door.
I'm sure we'll see similar efforts from other PC manufacturers eventually, but let's see the software use those extra cores in Windows land. Ain't gonna happen...not on the level of what Apple's doing at least.
First, this is INTEL innovating, not Apple.
Second, Apple has been the one lagging behind on multiprocessor support. Pre OSX it was a joke of a hack to support multi CPUs in Mac OS and you had to have apps written to take advantage of it with special libraries.
On Windows, the scheduler automatically handles task scheduling no matter how many processors you have, 1 or 8. Your app doesn't have to "know" it's on a single or multiple processor system or do anything special to take advantage of multiple processors, other than threading -- which you can do on a single processor system anyway. Most applications are lazy and unimaginative, and do everything in a single thread (worse, the same thread that is processing event messages from the GUI, which is why apps lock up -- when they end up in a bad state they stop processing events from the OS and won't paint, resize, etc.). But when you take advantage of multithreading, there are some sand traps but it's a cool way to code and that's how you take advantage of multiple cores without having to know what kind of system you are on. I would assume OSX, being based on BSD, is similar, but I don't know the architecture to the degree I know Windows.
In Windows, you can set process "affinity", locking it down to a fixed processor core, through Task Manager. Don't know if you can do that in OSX...
I'm sure we'll see similar efforts from other PC manufacturers eventually, but let's see the software use those extra cores in Windows land. Ain't gonna happen...not on the level of what Apple's doing at least.
First, this is INTEL innovating, not Apple.
Second, Apple has been the one lagging behind on multiprocessor support. Pre OSX it was a joke of a hack to support multi CPUs in Mac OS and you had to have apps written to take advantage of it with special libraries.
On Windows, the scheduler automatically handles task scheduling no matter how many processors you have, 1 or 8. Your app doesn't have to "know" it's on a single or multiple processor system or do anything special to take advantage of multiple processors, other than threading -- which you can do on a single processor system anyway. Most applications are lazy and unimaginative, and do everything in a single thread (worse, the same thread that is processing event messages from the GUI, which is why apps lock up -- when they end up in a bad state they stop processing events from the OS and won't paint, resize, etc.). But when you take advantage of multithreading, there are some sand traps but it's a cool way to code and that's how you take advantage of multiple cores without having to know what kind of system you are on. I would assume OSX, being based on BSD, is similar, but I don't know the architecture to the degree I know Windows.
In Windows, you can set process "affinity", locking it down to a fixed processor core, through Task Manager. Don't know if you can do that in OSX...
shawnce
Jul 27, 03:57 PM
Still, they are the successors to conroe and woodcrest. As long as they are socket compatible, they're the next generation for these machines, whether you consider them a new chip or not.
They will not replace the dual core version, they will exist as an additional product offering.
They will not replace the dual core version, they will exist as an additional product offering.
xStep
Apr 7, 10:40 PM
"Apparently, Best Buy was holding off on selling the iPad 2s it had in stock, telling customers there weren’t any when in fact they had just reached their quota of sales for the day."
The difference to the customer is zero. Unavailable for purchase either way.
If this report has any truth to it, Apple should be ashamed to nick-pick over semantics.
NOTE: I seem to have misunderstood (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12358714&postcount=408).
The difference to the customer is zero. Unavailable for purchase either way.
If this report has any truth to it, Apple should be ashamed to nick-pick over semantics.
NOTE: I seem to have misunderstood (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12358714&postcount=408).
iKenny
Aug 7, 11:37 PM
Well I for one was kind of disappointed. Leopard is sort of Apple's chance to prove they can out-Vista Vista, and I'm not really sure what we saw today does it. I've been following Vista somewhat closely, and it really does catch Windows up to OS X in terms of features and prettiness.
I really think most of the features shown off today are already present in Windows (I've definitely heard about all of them before) or will be in Vista, and it's too bad Apple didn't have anything truly innovative to show us. Hopefully those secret features are something good...
The other thing that has me a little concerned is the huge amount of Vista-bashing that went on. I feel like if Leopard at this point were truly better than Vista, they'd be silent about Vista entirely and let the new system speak for itself. That would be really slick. That's not what happened however, and instead there was a lot of "look what Vista copied from us" and "check out how much better Leopard is." What I saw today, though, makes the former statement sound whiney and the latter sound foolish, since in my eyes, in terms of features, they're about on-par with each other.
I really hope Apple pulls it together. They've got to do this right, because come next year, most of the myriad reasons for switching to a Mac will be nullified by Vista.
BTW: whoever this "Platform Experience" guy is, get him off the stage and go back to Steve.
I really think most of the features shown off today are already present in Windows (I've definitely heard about all of them before) or will be in Vista, and it's too bad Apple didn't have anything truly innovative to show us. Hopefully those secret features are something good...
The other thing that has me a little concerned is the huge amount of Vista-bashing that went on. I feel like if Leopard at this point were truly better than Vista, they'd be silent about Vista entirely and let the new system speak for itself. That would be really slick. That's not what happened however, and instead there was a lot of "look what Vista copied from us" and "check out how much better Leopard is." What I saw today, though, makes the former statement sound whiney and the latter sound foolish, since in my eyes, in terms of features, they're about on-par with each other.
I really hope Apple pulls it together. They've got to do this right, because come next year, most of the myriad reasons for switching to a Mac will be nullified by Vista.
BTW: whoever this "Platform Experience" guy is, get him off the stage and go back to Steve.
gnasher729
Aug 17, 03:57 AM
[QUOTE=jicon]Lots of stuff on Anandtech about the poor memory performance on the Intel chipset./QUOTE]
FB Dimms are not designed to give maximum bandwidth to one chip, they are designed to give maximum bandwidth to _four_ cores. Instead of having _one_ program running to test memory bandwidth, they should have started four copies of it and see what happens. That is what you have doubled front side bus, buffered memory and two separate memory units for. The biggest criticism in the past against Intel multi-CPU systems was that the memory bandwidth didn't scale; in the Mac Pro, it does.
FB Dimms are not designed to give maximum bandwidth to one chip, they are designed to give maximum bandwidth to _four_ cores. Instead of having _one_ program running to test memory bandwidth, they should have started four copies of it and see what happens. That is what you have doubled front side bus, buffered memory and two separate memory units for. The biggest criticism in the past against Intel multi-CPU systems was that the memory bandwidth didn't scale; in the Mac Pro, it does.
sinisterdesign
Jul 20, 10:09 AM
eight cores + Tiger = Octopussy?!?
leekohler
Apr 28, 10:13 AM
What is absolutely hilarious last night their were sound bites of Republican's asking "Why did Obama bring this birth certificate thing up, we have work to do!!"
Hypocrites til the end. They'll be like this forever. A bunch of petty children.
Hypocrites til the end. They'll be like this forever. A bunch of petty children.
JAT
Apr 6, 03:53 PM
What you and every other non-informed are missing is the Xoom lack of apps is a not really a con for 2 reason.
1. Unlike iOS, ALL APPS, in the android market scale to fit the 1280x800 screen. No x1 or x2 crap. So I can still ENJOY my facebooke app on a larger screen. Nothing is lost. "optimized for tablets" gives me the same information just with a different interface. So long has my twitter app or facebooke or squeezebox app scale so i can see all. I am a happy camper.
2. Unlike iOS i would argue that the xoom needs LESS apps to do functions that take iOS 3 or 4 apps to do. I dont need goodreader or the like because I have a native file system. I dont need skyfire because i have flash. I dont need to open in here, open in there. Every app can have access to each other...
Scale?? Access to each other??
I'm beginning to wonder if you have ever used EITHER iOS or Android.
1. Unlike iOS, ALL APPS, in the android market scale to fit the 1280x800 screen. No x1 or x2 crap. So I can still ENJOY my facebooke app on a larger screen. Nothing is lost. "optimized for tablets" gives me the same information just with a different interface. So long has my twitter app or facebooke or squeezebox app scale so i can see all. I am a happy camper.
2. Unlike iOS i would argue that the xoom needs LESS apps to do functions that take iOS 3 or 4 apps to do. I dont need goodreader or the like because I have a native file system. I dont need skyfire because i have flash. I dont need to open in here, open in there. Every app can have access to each other...
Scale?? Access to each other??
I'm beginning to wonder if you have ever used EITHER iOS or Android.
ergle2
Sep 13, 03:02 PM
You totally missed my point. Even if an application uses only one thread at all times, that application is still a separate process from all of the other processes you have running. At any given time you'll have at least 30 something processes, even when no user-land applications are running. OS X will spread out those processes to try to utilize all the cores as much as possible.
In reality, there are probably not too many non-Apple applications which routinely use 8 threads or more. In the near future I expect all applications to use at least 2-3 threads, even the most simple ones.
Sure, but all those background processes take next to no time to execute -- the extra latency of having more processors will probably slow things down far more than you gain from having up to 8 of those 30 be able to run at any one time.
I'm not saying there's no need for 8 cores -- markets such as databases, media production, rendering, etc. can already make use of that kind of power.
Regular desktops, not so much.
Many simple apps are already mutithreadedto some dgree, but it's to make them non-blocking rather than to spread processor load. If you look at Windows, you'll find a very high number of threads in even just a media player, but some of it's just there to repaint the GUI etc.
In reality, there are probably not too many non-Apple applications which routinely use 8 threads or more. In the near future I expect all applications to use at least 2-3 threads, even the most simple ones.
Sure, but all those background processes take next to no time to execute -- the extra latency of having more processors will probably slow things down far more than you gain from having up to 8 of those 30 be able to run at any one time.
I'm not saying there's no need for 8 cores -- markets such as databases, media production, rendering, etc. can already make use of that kind of power.
Regular desktops, not so much.
Many simple apps are already mutithreadedto some dgree, but it's to make them non-blocking rather than to spread processor load. If you look at Windows, you'll find a very high number of threads in even just a media player, but some of it's just there to repaint the GUI etc.
Alag28
Aug 27, 01:03 AM
so lemee guess these new lappies are gonna start at 1999$??
ChrisA
Aug 7, 06:25 PM
It seems to me it would make some older versions available on your HD, but then you would want to make a copy to an external HD for space reasons and for backup in case of failure. But I'm just speculating of course
I suspect what happens is you get to specifiy _where_ the backup copies are kept. I hear Steve say that it "could be either an external disk or a server". The "Or a server" part is the most interresting. That server could be in another building or even across the Internet. and then how is that server backed up???? I can imagine a small home system would use an external disk but a network of computers would share 2 or 3 backup servers with at least on of the backup servers in a remote location.
Here in the office our big file server is kept sync'd of to two other servers that are each several hundred miles away. This protects against an Earthquake or building fire. This type of automated backup was not invented by Apple. It's been done for decades but it appears Apple has made is easy, cheap and universal.
"Tinme Machine" would also have value even if there was only one disk on say a notebook. It would alow you to recover from the common problem where to make a bad edit and then saved your work and then the next day want to recover the version you maked four days ago. Now I simply make multiple copies that clutter of the folder but now Mac OSX would in effect back these for you. Then if you add an extrnal disk you are protected from a disk fairue then if you add a remote server you are protected from a house fire or theft of the system. I think it will be very configurable but have a reasonable out of the box configuration.
Next I want to see if this is integrated with software RAID
I suspect what happens is you get to specifiy _where_ the backup copies are kept. I hear Steve say that it "could be either an external disk or a server". The "Or a server" part is the most interresting. That server could be in another building or even across the Internet. and then how is that server backed up???? I can imagine a small home system would use an external disk but a network of computers would share 2 or 3 backup servers with at least on of the backup servers in a remote location.
Here in the office our big file server is kept sync'd of to two other servers that are each several hundred miles away. This protects against an Earthquake or building fire. This type of automated backup was not invented by Apple. It's been done for decades but it appears Apple has made is easy, cheap and universal.
"Tinme Machine" would also have value even if there was only one disk on say a notebook. It would alow you to recover from the common problem where to make a bad edit and then saved your work and then the next day want to recover the version you maked four days ago. Now I simply make multiple copies that clutter of the folder but now Mac OSX would in effect back these for you. Then if you add an extrnal disk you are protected from a disk fairue then if you add a remote server you are protected from a house fire or theft of the system. I think it will be very configurable but have a reasonable out of the box configuration.
Next I want to see if this is integrated with software RAID
Nuck81
Dec 9, 11:24 AM
My biggest complaint about the game is that it's atmosphere and presentation are just absolutely sterile.
With the exception of car models the graphics don't approach what we see in other console racers. NFSL Shift makes it look like a PS2 game when it comes to detail, but GT5 makes a huge comeback and almost breaks dead even since it runs at 60fps. I went back and played Shift the other day and it was so choppy I almost couldn't play it.
The sound is also disappointing. Except for the car engines (to the guy that said they all sound the same, stop putting the same muffler and tranny on every car, it covers up their distinct sound) everything else is canned a tinny. When I go off track I hardly get any indication on sound. Go off track on Shift and you can hear pebbles, gravel, and dirt grinding under your car and banging around on the sides. Shift snarls, roars, rumbles and get's you excited to be out there and racing with other cars. GT5 is like driving miss daisy. The AI follows a single line, there is no off road sound, hardly any rumble on the gamepad, and it doesn't do a lot to put you in the game.
But GT5 makes up for a lot just by how the cars feel when they drive. Every single car is different and you can tell instantly. It drives so well I had to go get a Driving Force GT just to enjoy the drive as much as I can. Also I'll use it for Shift 2, and other racing games I have.
If you want a racing game, there are better ones than GT5. I'd recommend Shift over GT5 to someone who just wants a racing game. But if you want to drive cars, and come as close as you can without actually driving one on a console, there is not a better ride on any system (other than PC) than GT5.
With the exception of car models the graphics don't approach what we see in other console racers. NFSL Shift makes it look like a PS2 game when it comes to detail, but GT5 makes a huge comeback and almost breaks dead even since it runs at 60fps. I went back and played Shift the other day and it was so choppy I almost couldn't play it.
The sound is also disappointing. Except for the car engines (to the guy that said they all sound the same, stop putting the same muffler and tranny on every car, it covers up their distinct sound) everything else is canned a tinny. When I go off track I hardly get any indication on sound. Go off track on Shift and you can hear pebbles, gravel, and dirt grinding under your car and banging around on the sides. Shift snarls, roars, rumbles and get's you excited to be out there and racing with other cars. GT5 is like driving miss daisy. The AI follows a single line, there is no off road sound, hardly any rumble on the gamepad, and it doesn't do a lot to put you in the game.
But GT5 makes up for a lot just by how the cars feel when they drive. Every single car is different and you can tell instantly. It drives so well I had to go get a Driving Force GT just to enjoy the drive as much as I can. Also I'll use it for Shift 2, and other racing games I have.
If you want a racing game, there are better ones than GT5. I'd recommend Shift over GT5 to someone who just wants a racing game. But if you want to drive cars, and come as close as you can without actually driving one on a console, there is not a better ride on any system (other than PC) than GT5.
Westside guy
Mar 22, 01:05 PM
Ugh. When and if I buy a tablet, I don't intend to limit my consideration to just the iPad - but displaying pre-release hardware that doesn't even function yet is just silly. That's a Microsoft-ish move - it may excite the tech press, but customers aren't going to care unless they can see the darn thing run!
I must admit I'm a bit put off by what appears to be a consistent unwillingness by hardware manufacturers to provide software upgrades for their existing Android devices.
I must admit I'm a bit put off by what appears to be a consistent unwillingness by hardware manufacturers to provide software upgrades for their existing Android devices.
erockerboy
Aug 17, 01:07 PM
Great post - you said it all.
I think everyone has to remember that Apple took a HUGE PR risk by switching to intel and that it would be foolish to think that they didn't have a VERY GOOD REASON for doing it. As much as RISC is loved here, there really is no compelling reason to think that the G5 architecture stands much of a chance in this comparison. Furthermore, it is foolish to assume that a "up-to-date" G5 would fare any better, firstly because IBM has never stopped developing the G5 (its primary usage was IBM blade servers after all) and secondly because the Core 2 architecture as it stands now isn't being pushed to perform at its maximum levels. In the end, arrogance and pride has never helped anyone, its time to let go.
I think everyone has to remember that Apple took a HUGE PR risk by switching to intel and that it would be foolish to think that they didn't have a VERY GOOD REASON for doing it. As much as RISC is loved here, there really is no compelling reason to think that the G5 architecture stands much of a chance in this comparison. Furthermore, it is foolish to assume that a "up-to-date" G5 would fare any better, firstly because IBM has never stopped developing the G5 (its primary usage was IBM blade servers after all) and secondly because the Core 2 architecture as it stands now isn't being pushed to perform at its maximum levels. In the end, arrogance and pride has never helped anyone, its time to let go.
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 03:50 PM
Ever heard of DoCoMo?
And....
Trying to say that DoCoMo is the majority of the other 19%? Doubt it.
And....
Trying to say that DoCoMo is the majority of the other 19%? Doubt it.
Chundles
Jul 20, 08:58 AM
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
I think you're a bit confused, 8x 3GHz cores doesn't equal 1x 24GHz processor.
I think you're a bit confused, 8x 3GHz cores doesn't equal 1x 24GHz processor.