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.
tny
Jul 20, 09:06 AM
I got it!
The Macintosh Quadra!
No, wait . . . .
;)
You realize there are probably only four people on this board who are old enough to get that joke, right?
My "vote" goes for "Hex" - "The Mac Hex. Buy one and see." Then again, maybe not.
The Macintosh Quadra!
No, wait . . . .
;)
You realize there are probably only four people on this board who are old enough to get that joke, right?
My "vote" goes for "Hex" - "The Mac Hex. Buy one and see." Then again, maybe not.
benthewraith
Nov 28, 07:42 PM
Many years ago a media levy was passed in the United States that applies a "tax" to "consumer digital audio" media (CD-R blanks, DAT, etc.) with the proceeds going to music industry/artists. The justification was to offset losses due to illegal copying of music in digital form (generational loseless copies). This to date hasn't been expanded to include devices like the iPod (at least I don't recall that taking place).
Which makes no sense. If they get compensated by blank CD/DVD sales to offset the money loss from pirating, then why the hell are they suing consumers for P2P?
Actually, I suspected Universal was going to do the same with the iPod, regardless of whether the Zune debuted or not. They obviously can manipulate Microsoft, they'll try and do the same with Apple.
And lets not forget, these are the same people who wish they could sue people for ripping their cds (and burning them again so as to do away with all the DRM **** they put on them).
As to why their music sales have been dropping, if half the songs on the market weren't about pimps and beating hos', probably a lot more people would buy it.
Which makes no sense. If they get compensated by blank CD/DVD sales to offset the money loss from pirating, then why the hell are they suing consumers for P2P?
Actually, I suspected Universal was going to do the same with the iPod, regardless of whether the Zune debuted or not. They obviously can manipulate Microsoft, they'll try and do the same with Apple.
And lets not forget, these are the same people who wish they could sue people for ripping their cds (and burning them again so as to do away with all the DRM **** they put on them).
As to why their music sales have been dropping, if half the songs on the market weren't about pimps and beating hos', probably a lot more people would buy it.
balamw
Apr 6, 04:40 PM
I should say that I do own an Android device. I own an original Nook, and will probably pick up a 4-7" device at some point to play with in a generation or two.
B
B
tortoise
Aug 7, 09:14 PM
Lots of ways it COULD be implemented. Looks at Suns new file system ZFS. It is basically "Copy on Write". With a file system you can do things even fancier then with a DBMS. For example a "block" (i-node) exists physicaly on the disk only once but it could be maped into any numbr of files. If a file in only an orderd set of block numbers then to copy a copy all you need to copy is the set of numbers which is on the order of 1000 times shorter then the data itself.
Ahem, a modern relational database system can do everything a file system can. In fact, they are both databases, but optimized for different tasks and slightly different semantics. The same behaviors can be achieved with both; it is a matter of design bias, not capability. File systems like ZFS actually converge on normal MVCC database behavior, which durably journals all writes but with more flexibility with respect to atomicity and version cleanup than a file system. File system semantics, even versioning ones, are more primitive and less capable than database ones, but with substantially increased performance over what would be possible from an MVCC database for the same task.
Same theory, different optimizations. The balancing act has always been between the power fully ACID-compliant MVCC semantics and the basic speed of simple file system semantics. Apple and Sun are burning some excess performance capacity to deliver features that are closer to the database ideal.
Ahem, a modern relational database system can do everything a file system can. In fact, they are both databases, but optimized for different tasks and slightly different semantics. The same behaviors can be achieved with both; it is a matter of design bias, not capability. File systems like ZFS actually converge on normal MVCC database behavior, which durably journals all writes but with more flexibility with respect to atomicity and version cleanup than a file system. File system semantics, even versioning ones, are more primitive and less capable than database ones, but with substantially increased performance over what would be possible from an MVCC database for the same task.
Same theory, different optimizations. The balancing act has always been between the power fully ACID-compliant MVCC semantics and the basic speed of simple file system semantics. Apple and Sun are burning some excess performance capacity to deliver features that are closer to the database ideal.
twoodcc
Sep 19, 12:18 AM
well i hope that this happens....and that they make more changes with the MBP
kdarling
Mar 23, 10:18 AM
If you read my original post, you'll notice that I was referring to the fact that many programmers are careless about optimizing their code all because they can count on a large amount of resources, and because they get lazy.
I think anyone programming above assembly language and/or on a device with more than about 16K of memory, gets lazy :)
Most Mac programmers are good at optimizing, while many Windows programmers are not.
Where does Apple's horrible iTunes for Windows fit into this myth?
I think anyone programming above assembly language and/or on a device with more than about 16K of memory, gets lazy :)
Most Mac programmers are good at optimizing, while many Windows programmers are not.
Where does Apple's horrible iTunes for Windows fit into this myth?
SiliconAddict
Aug 11, 03:02 PM
So what happens when Apple finds out the source of the leak was Jobs? Does he get fired? :p
mBox
Apr 8, 11:19 PM
Careful, some trolls will insist that your opinion is only relevant to your narrow world view and that you need itemized spreadsheets to prove that you know what you're talking about.The positive is that all the other mentioned apps are Apple capable :)
wmmk
Aug 20, 01:04 AM
Anyone ever check and see if Quicktime was Universal
if i'm not mistaken, it's been universal since osx for intel was released.
if i'm not mistaken, it's been universal since osx for intel was released.
BlondeBuddhist
Jun 8, 08:47 PM
I would rather just order it online if I didn't want to drive to an Apple Store.
Seriously, RadioShack needs to die.
from what the Apple service rep told me today, in order to pre-order by adding a line I have to do the pre-ordering in the store.
Seriously, RadioShack needs to die.
from what the Apple service rep told me today, in order to pre-order by adding a line I have to do the pre-ordering in the store.
ssamani
Sep 13, 07:15 PM
DAMN :eek:
so 2-3 years from now are people going to be asking "do I need a quad core or an 8 core macbook? oh yeah I'll mostly be surfing the web and maybe editing a photo once and a while" :rolleyes:
I'll be mostly surfing the web to simultaneously stream multiple TV channels, download HD movies and video chat with friends with a live video substitution background and maybe editing a 16 Megapixel camera phone photo and the odd HD camcorder movie once in a while.
Hey, as Steve said, 128K is more than anyone will ever need...
so 2-3 years from now are people going to be asking "do I need a quad core or an 8 core macbook? oh yeah I'll mostly be surfing the web and maybe editing a photo once and a while" :rolleyes:
I'll be mostly surfing the web to simultaneously stream multiple TV channels, download HD movies and video chat with friends with a live video substitution background and maybe editing a 16 Megapixel camera phone photo and the odd HD camcorder movie once in a while.
Hey, as Steve said, 128K is more than anyone will ever need...
mkrishnan
Aug 7, 04:22 PM
If Apple had had that feature for years and MS would include it into Vista now, you'd call it copying, no !? ;)
*shrug* I don't think TM is a copy of System Restore. But I think how much that feature has caught on with Win users is also not unrelated to the presence of TM in Leopard. All's fair in love, war, and operating systems. :)
*shrug* I don't think TM is a copy of System Restore. But I think how much that feature has caught on with Win users is also not unrelated to the presence of TM in Leopard. All's fair in love, war, and operating systems. :)
stormj
Aug 11, 06:41 PM
We can argue in circles about whether GSM or CDMA is better. Each has its advantages. The fact remains that GSM networks are everywhere, including the US. CDMA networks exist on a tiny scale outside of the US.
UMTS uses W-CDMA anyway, so for that part of the technology, which is critical to the itunes store working, you'll get those much touted soft-handoffs. Only the voice part (assuming you're not in a VOIP connection) would go by the allegedly inferior GSM connection.
I'd bet a significant chunk of money that Apple makes a GSM version of any phone it produces, regardless of whether or not it does make a CDMA version.
P.S. no w-IDEN defenders? lolz.
UMTS uses W-CDMA anyway, so for that part of the technology, which is critical to the itunes store working, you'll get those much touted soft-handoffs. Only the voice part (assuming you're not in a VOIP connection) would go by the allegedly inferior GSM connection.
I'd bet a significant chunk of money that Apple makes a GSM version of any phone it produces, regardless of whether or not it does make a CDMA version.
P.S. no w-IDEN defenders? lolz.
PhantomPumpkin
Apr 27, 10:55 AM
The difference is a question of access. To get at the records kept by your cell phone provider, you need a subpoena. Any roommate/guest/thief/stalker with access to your computer or iPhone can get the data off your iphone or the backup as it exists right now. I don't mind the former, but I want to do everything I can to prevent the latter.
Keep better tabs on your phone. Encrypt the computer backup. Yeah yeah, I know sometimes we lose things. Hell, I've lost my iphone in my couch and took a half hour to find out WHERE in the couch it went.
Even still, you have to take some responsibility at some point. We can't all rely on Apple/Google/Purina Brand Puppy Chow to keep our data completely 100% safe. As they say in the IT security industry, "Your biggest threats are the end users". Technology can only go so far.
If you're REALLY paranoid, install Where's my Iphone, and if you lose it, remote wipe it.
Keep better tabs on your phone. Encrypt the computer backup. Yeah yeah, I know sometimes we lose things. Hell, I've lost my iphone in my couch and took a half hour to find out WHERE in the couch it went.
Even still, you have to take some responsibility at some point. We can't all rely on Apple/Google/Purina Brand Puppy Chow to keep our data completely 100% safe. As they say in the IT security industry, "Your biggest threats are the end users". Technology can only go so far.
If you're REALLY paranoid, install Where's my Iphone, and if you lose it, remote wipe it.
Ace25
Aug 26, 04:10 PM
I am now pretty sure that new MacBooks are being released in the next few days.
I ordered one on the 17th of august and it was scheduled to ship on the 24th of august. Then for some reason it was bumped to a new ship date of august 31st, just enough time to drop a new merom processor in it!
I ordered one on the 17th of august and it was scheduled to ship on the 24th of august. Then for some reason it was bumped to a new ship date of august 31st, just enough time to drop a new merom processor in it!
ergle2
Sep 14, 10:49 PM
Really, completely new? As in, to Core 2 what the G5 was to G4? In just two years?? I guess they're really ramping things up... Core 3 Hexa Mac Pros, anyone?
Intel's stated plans as I understand them are thus:
A new micro-arch every 2 years. I don't think they mean brand new so much as "significant changes/improvements". Whether this is akin to Yonah->Conroe or Netburst->Conroe remains to be seen, but more like the former (or perhaps Pentium-M -> Merom -- Core Duo was very much a stop-gap). Little has been released about Nehalem, but at one time it was slated as "based on Banias/Dothan", due in 2005 and expected to ramp to 9/10GHz.
"Off" years will recieve derivative versions (e.g. Merom->Penryn), which appears to be mostly stuff like L2 cache increases, faster FSB speeds (at least while we have FSBs - 2008 looks like the year for DCI, finally), die shrinks, increasing the number of cores (expect at least one to be more cores on a single die instead of two dice/package), etc.
Die shrinks are currently scheduled for "off" years, in order to stablize the process ready for the new micro-arch in the following year so Intel doesn't need to deal with both new process and new arch at the same time, and presumably in part to keep speed increases coming in "off" years
Of course, roadmaps can change quite rapidly -- it's not that long ago that Whitfield was expected to debut late 2006 with DCI (FSB replacement). Whitfield was replaced by Tigerton which is now due sometime in 2007...
One thing's for sure, Intel appears to have learnt a great deal from the Netburst fiasco -- how not to do things, if nothing else. Unfortunately, they still estimate ~50% of processors shipping in 1Q2007 will be netburst-based (mostly Pentium-D).
Intel's stated plans as I understand them are thus:
A new micro-arch every 2 years. I don't think they mean brand new so much as "significant changes/improvements". Whether this is akin to Yonah->Conroe or Netburst->Conroe remains to be seen, but more like the former (or perhaps Pentium-M -> Merom -- Core Duo was very much a stop-gap). Little has been released about Nehalem, but at one time it was slated as "based on Banias/Dothan", due in 2005 and expected to ramp to 9/10GHz.
"Off" years will recieve derivative versions (e.g. Merom->Penryn), which appears to be mostly stuff like L2 cache increases, faster FSB speeds (at least while we have FSBs - 2008 looks like the year for DCI, finally), die shrinks, increasing the number of cores (expect at least one to be more cores on a single die instead of two dice/package), etc.
Die shrinks are currently scheduled for "off" years, in order to stablize the process ready for the new micro-arch in the following year so Intel doesn't need to deal with both new process and new arch at the same time, and presumably in part to keep speed increases coming in "off" years
Of course, roadmaps can change quite rapidly -- it's not that long ago that Whitfield was expected to debut late 2006 with DCI (FSB replacement). Whitfield was replaced by Tigerton which is now due sometime in 2007...
One thing's for sure, Intel appears to have learnt a great deal from the Netburst fiasco -- how not to do things, if nothing else. Unfortunately, they still estimate ~50% of processors shipping in 1Q2007 will be netburst-based (mostly Pentium-D).
ryanx27
Aug 27, 11:05 AM
I happen to have a Yonah Macbook, and im a little concerned.
I wonder, if merom does make it into the Macbooks did i make a mistake by buying my computer before i had to (as in next friday is the cutoff)
I wonder if Merom is really that good. *it sucks that macbooks dont have PGA slots*
well im hoping to sell this one next year, and thatll get me most of the way to my santa rosa beast, cuz i KNOW santa rosa is that good.
This is the classic existential dilemma of the Mac user :D
I wonder, if merom does make it into the Macbooks did i make a mistake by buying my computer before i had to (as in next friday is the cutoff)
I wonder if Merom is really that good. *it sucks that macbooks dont have PGA slots*
well im hoping to sell this one next year, and thatll get me most of the way to my santa rosa beast, cuz i KNOW santa rosa is that good.
This is the classic existential dilemma of the Mac user :D
Silentwave
Aug 26, 10:47 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.
I believe Intel has been having trouble getting the required chipsets out on time to the desktop market.
You can get the chips themselves without much trouble- the retail versions are available at Newegg for the 1.86, 2.13, 2.66, and 2.93 Extreme Core 2 Duo chips, with the sole out of stock chip being the 2.4GHz chip, with an estimated time of arrival being Sept. 1st at 2:30PM.
Dell has announced some Conroe systems that you can order, but as far as I know they aren't readily shipping yet.
I believe Intel has been having trouble getting the required chipsets out on time to the desktop market.
You can get the chips themselves without much trouble- the retail versions are available at Newegg for the 1.86, 2.13, 2.66, and 2.93 Extreme Core 2 Duo chips, with the sole out of stock chip being the 2.4GHz chip, with an estimated time of arrival being Sept. 1st at 2:30PM.
LagunaSol
Apr 19, 01:57 PM
wow @ post 2.
apple will have a hard time fighting this in court.
Hardly. Samsung would have been fine had they stuck to that original theme, rather than move into Apple's house as a squatter with a subsequent model:
http://www.tmobileniles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/iphone4-vs-galaxy-s-head.jpg
apple will have a hard time fighting this in court.
Hardly. Samsung would have been fine had they stuck to that original theme, rather than move into Apple's house as a squatter with a subsequent model:
http://www.tmobileniles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/iphone4-vs-galaxy-s-head.jpg
Malligator
Mar 31, 04:27 PM
what is this bash apple competitors day?
What is this, "let's go on an Apple fansite and act surpised that it's full of Apple fans" day?
What is this, "let's go on an Apple fansite and act surpised that it's full of Apple fans" day?
rezenclowd3
Dec 1, 11:31 PM
I hate to link to IGN, but here goes:
GT5 damage explained (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/113/1137446p1.html)
Confusion seems to have stemmed from its differing implementation across the game's extensive garage, a point that Sony further clarified. "Standard models have minor deformation and scratches," said Sony, "Premium cars have greater visible level of damage, and Premium racing models have the highest level of damage."
----------
Also from this (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/113/1136979p1.html) article:
"The first update, Yamauchi said, is coming this Saturday and will include restrictions for weight and power in online races.
Yamauchi went on to say that his team would be "upgrading every week, every month." "
GT5 damage explained (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/113/1137446p1.html)
Confusion seems to have stemmed from its differing implementation across the game's extensive garage, a point that Sony further clarified. "Standard models have minor deformation and scratches," said Sony, "Premium cars have greater visible level of damage, and Premium racing models have the highest level of damage."
----------
Also from this (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/113/1136979p1.html) article:
"The first update, Yamauchi said, is coming this Saturday and will include restrictions for weight and power in online races.
Yamauchi went on to say that his team would be "upgrading every week, every month." "
wizz0bang
Jul 14, 05:29 PM
Here are my guesses/wishes:
Mac - New Mini tower case (2 HD, 2 CD bays)
Mac $1499
(Conroe) Core 2 Duo 2.4Ghz 4MB cache
1GB DDR2-800
ATI Radeon X1800 256MB
250GB HD
2x front USB, 1x front FW400
4x rear USB, 2x rear FW400, 1x rear FW800
Digital + analog audio I/O
Bluetooth and Airport extreme
Dual gb ethernet
Keyboard and mightymouse
Mac eXtreme $1999
Same as above, but with 2.93GHz Core 2 extreme (maybe overclocked to 3GHz+ so Steve can gloat)
Mac Pro: Similar case to previous G5 towers, all will be quad (dual dual).
Mac Pro $1999
2x Woodcrest 2.0Ghz
1GB DDR667
ATI Radeon X1800 256MB
2x250GB raid
ATI Radeon
Mac Pro $2499
2x Woodcrest 2.66Ghz
Mac Pro $3299
2x Woodcrest 3.0Ghz
More storage and more Ram
Look for same hot video upgrade options.
Come on Steve, I know you can do it!
Mac - New Mini tower case (2 HD, 2 CD bays)
Mac $1499
(Conroe) Core 2 Duo 2.4Ghz 4MB cache
1GB DDR2-800
ATI Radeon X1800 256MB
250GB HD
2x front USB, 1x front FW400
4x rear USB, 2x rear FW400, 1x rear FW800
Digital + analog audio I/O
Bluetooth and Airport extreme
Dual gb ethernet
Keyboard and mightymouse
Mac eXtreme $1999
Same as above, but with 2.93GHz Core 2 extreme (maybe overclocked to 3GHz+ so Steve can gloat)
Mac Pro: Similar case to previous G5 towers, all will be quad (dual dual).
Mac Pro $1999
2x Woodcrest 2.0Ghz
1GB DDR667
ATI Radeon X1800 256MB
2x250GB raid
ATI Radeon
Mac Pro $2499
2x Woodcrest 2.66Ghz
Mac Pro $3299
2x Woodcrest 3.0Ghz
More storage and more Ram
Look for same hot video upgrade options.
Come on Steve, I know you can do it!
Scottsdale
Apr 6, 11:38 AM
clock speed is not everything... a 1.4ghz sb processor will kill anything you are doing with a 2.4ghz c2d. There are many other factors in a processor than just clock speed so i wouldn't be worried. There is no doubt that the sb will be a much faster processor than the ancient c2d.
Also, I would say 50% less graphics is a bit of a stretch. Haven't personally ran any benchmarks but was reading a thread the other day and in the benchmarks and graphics they were showing that the 320m averages about 5-10 extra fps over the 3000.
here is a thread you can look at and compare for yourself.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1103257
Sure the integrated graphics are going to be slightly worse, but at least you will have a nice new processor. Can't always have your cake and eat it too, especially in an ultraportable.
When the mba was refreshed everyone was complaining about the outdated processor, now rumors of a processor upgrade and people bitch about the integrated graphics. Guess you can't please everyone but jesus, sometimes it just seems like people find anything they can to complain about.
Here's a simple solution for all of you, if you want the "slightly" better graphics go buy a macbook air right now, it's not like apple has stopped selling them. If you'd rather have a sandy bridge processor, wait it out. Seems simple but i guess that's just me?!?!?!:eek:
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Also, I would say 50% less graphics is a bit of a stretch. Haven't personally ran any benchmarks but was reading a thread the other day and in the benchmarks and graphics they were showing that the 320m averages about 5-10 extra fps over the 3000.
here is a thread you can look at and compare for yourself.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1103257
Sure the integrated graphics are going to be slightly worse, but at least you will have a nice new processor. Can't always have your cake and eat it too, especially in an ultraportable.
When the mba was refreshed everyone was complaining about the outdated processor, now rumors of a processor upgrade and people bitch about the integrated graphics. Guess you can't please everyone but jesus, sometimes it just seems like people find anything they can to complain about.
Here's a simple solution for all of you, if you want the "slightly" better graphics go buy a macbook air right now, it's not like apple has stopped selling them. If you'd rather have a sandy bridge processor, wait it out. Seems simple but i guess that's just me?!?!?!:eek:
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.