chrmjenkins
Apr 14, 02:55 PM
Well, it would surprise me. USB3.0 and Thunderbolt will come included in Intel''s Ivy Bridge. Apple would have to add more hardware and disable USB 3.0 to make it 2.0 only. Makes zero cents.
Who are you to comment on the potential profitability of said move?
Who are you to comment on the potential profitability of said move?
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 16, 11:21 AM
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
You keep talking about a non-existent adapter that costs $10 and comparing mini-display port adapters that merely convert signal paths isn't even in the same realm as converting to an entirely different interface. In other words your 'adapter' prices are 100% BS and you know it.
LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
Don't tase me bro! :eek:
Seriously, you going to compare a demonstration with a professional mass storage array that isn't available to the public yet and which I said at the bottom of my last post is a perfect use for TB (i.e. with professional editing software) with the Lacie consumer grade 5200 RPM SLOW USB3 drive? Dude, you have to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a race car to a Chevette.... That neither proves nor disproves anything about the full capability of USB3. The ad on that box is marketing BS about the "interface" not the drive they're selling (which is a slow 5200 RPM SATA drive which all top out between 40-60MB/sec PERIOD, regardless whether they use SATA, USB3, Firewire 800 or Thunderbolt). Show me a 7200 RPM (or better yet a 10,000+ SCSI rated) drive connected to USB3 AND TB (or even FW800) and then compare their actual speeds. OR find an array that goes fast like the one Intel was using that also has USB3 on it and compare their actual speeds 1 to 1. Showing me Steak Diane on one plate and a hot dog on the other doesn't prove the cook who made the hot dog doesn't know how to cook. It simply proves he was given a hot dog to cook.
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives.
No more than you assuming you're going to get a $10 USB3 adapter. At least my assumption is based on Firewire statistics and early adoption rates. Yours is based on dreaming.
LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior
I think the 5200 RPM 2.5" drive that came with my MBP capped out around 50MB/sec using a SATA II interface (or 450mbps). Does that prove my SATA chip set SUCKS? NO, IT DOES NOT. When I replaced it with a 7200 RPM Hitachi, it now caps out around 110MB/sec (or 880mbps, well above FW800's theoretical cap even). Even my PPC G4 gets 105MB/sec caps with its 1.5TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda drives (and SATA does eat CPU as well; if I try to run two of them at the same time I still get a total of around 100MB/sec with the CPU pegged at 95-100%. The older PCI bus is also in the way. Thus it's not the SATA interface there that's the problem either, but you might think so if you make assumptions based only on one test number and no idea what's in the computer being used or any statistics about the CPU or Bus while its being used. Your YouTube videos comparisons are absurd in that regard. Cheap mass storage devices (like the Lacie) aren't made for performance. Show me TB making that same drive do over 100MB/sec. It won't happen.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3.
I never said any such thing. I said they won't pay a premium for Thunderbolt for every-day use. If you're just going to lie and change what I said, I won't bother replying anymore.
USB 3 won't be a premium over anything. It's going to be dirt cheap and a simple performance upgrade for everyone. It already is cheap for new computers and a pretty cheap add-on for existing ones; you cannot add TB to existing computers so there's another problem it has to contend with, especially trying to get a large user base in any reasonable length of time. The longer it takes to get a large installed user base, the longer the prices will stay high on any TB products. It's plainly obvious that TB is going to be a high-end niche product just like FW800, at least for the forseeable future. While Intel's demo is totally cool, it doesn't remotely represent the AVERAGE PC user in any shape or form. Most people aren't editing 4 simultaneous streams of 1080p video on a mega-buck professional high-speed drive array.
I have NO problem with TB technology or its usefulness in certain applications. I do contend that most people aren't going to give a crap about it one way or the other since their computers will not have it or need it for their everyday uses. More to the point, most computers (save maybe those from Apple) will have ALSO have USB3, allowing the user to make the best possible choices for their needs. USB3 will not fail or go away simply because it is a cheap upgrade to USB2 that is fully backwards compatible. Computers will have it just for that reason alone even if the user doesn't make good use of it.
IF TB ever achieves mass acceptance, it will be years into the future. It takes time to build a user base on a totally new technology. USB3 is a simple dump and replace and still works with everything USB2. TB works with NOTHING that already exists (save a few Mini-display port monitors and that's only because it carries Mini-display port video signals). The fact that Intel plans to do USB3 alongside TB on their next chipset shows even they understand that TB is going to be high-end/niche product for some time to come.
I have said in the past that IF Intel had used the USB3 style connector and essentially had USB compatibility + MORE bandwidth THEN they might start appearing on everything. But they chose instead to use a connector that is hardly on anything (but newer Macs) and that isn't much different than starting over with a totally new connector and no compatibility with anything (outside breakout boxes that are essentially PCI cards in a box). When it comes down to it, TB is basically the entire PCIe bus on a single external connector.
You keep talking about a non-existent adapter that costs $10 and comparing mini-display port adapters that merely convert signal paths isn't even in the same realm as converting to an entirely different interface. In other words your 'adapter' prices are 100% BS and you know it.
LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
Don't tase me bro! :eek:
Seriously, you going to compare a demonstration with a professional mass storage array that isn't available to the public yet and which I said at the bottom of my last post is a perfect use for TB (i.e. with professional editing software) with the Lacie consumer grade 5200 RPM SLOW USB3 drive? Dude, you have to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a race car to a Chevette.... That neither proves nor disproves anything about the full capability of USB3. The ad on that box is marketing BS about the "interface" not the drive they're selling (which is a slow 5200 RPM SATA drive which all top out between 40-60MB/sec PERIOD, regardless whether they use SATA, USB3, Firewire 800 or Thunderbolt). Show me a 7200 RPM (or better yet a 10,000+ SCSI rated) drive connected to USB3 AND TB (or even FW800) and then compare their actual speeds. OR find an array that goes fast like the one Intel was using that also has USB3 on it and compare their actual speeds 1 to 1. Showing me Steak Diane on one plate and a hot dog on the other doesn't prove the cook who made the hot dog doesn't know how to cook. It simply proves he was given a hot dog to cook.
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives.
No more than you assuming you're going to get a $10 USB3 adapter. At least my assumption is based on Firewire statistics and early adoption rates. Yours is based on dreaming.
LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior
I think the 5200 RPM 2.5" drive that came with my MBP capped out around 50MB/sec using a SATA II interface (or 450mbps). Does that prove my SATA chip set SUCKS? NO, IT DOES NOT. When I replaced it with a 7200 RPM Hitachi, it now caps out around 110MB/sec (or 880mbps, well above FW800's theoretical cap even). Even my PPC G4 gets 105MB/sec caps with its 1.5TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda drives (and SATA does eat CPU as well; if I try to run two of them at the same time I still get a total of around 100MB/sec with the CPU pegged at 95-100%. The older PCI bus is also in the way. Thus it's not the SATA interface there that's the problem either, but you might think so if you make assumptions based only on one test number and no idea what's in the computer being used or any statistics about the CPU or Bus while its being used. Your YouTube videos comparisons are absurd in that regard. Cheap mass storage devices (like the Lacie) aren't made for performance. Show me TB making that same drive do over 100MB/sec. It won't happen.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3.
I never said any such thing. I said they won't pay a premium for Thunderbolt for every-day use. If you're just going to lie and change what I said, I won't bother replying anymore.
USB 3 won't be a premium over anything. It's going to be dirt cheap and a simple performance upgrade for everyone. It already is cheap for new computers and a pretty cheap add-on for existing ones; you cannot add TB to existing computers so there's another problem it has to contend with, especially trying to get a large user base in any reasonable length of time. The longer it takes to get a large installed user base, the longer the prices will stay high on any TB products. It's plainly obvious that TB is going to be a high-end niche product just like FW800, at least for the forseeable future. While Intel's demo is totally cool, it doesn't remotely represent the AVERAGE PC user in any shape or form. Most people aren't editing 4 simultaneous streams of 1080p video on a mega-buck professional high-speed drive array.
I have NO problem with TB technology or its usefulness in certain applications. I do contend that most people aren't going to give a crap about it one way or the other since their computers will not have it or need it for their everyday uses. More to the point, most computers (save maybe those from Apple) will have ALSO have USB3, allowing the user to make the best possible choices for their needs. USB3 will not fail or go away simply because it is a cheap upgrade to USB2 that is fully backwards compatible. Computers will have it just for that reason alone even if the user doesn't make good use of it.
IF TB ever achieves mass acceptance, it will be years into the future. It takes time to build a user base on a totally new technology. USB3 is a simple dump and replace and still works with everything USB2. TB works with NOTHING that already exists (save a few Mini-display port monitors and that's only because it carries Mini-display port video signals). The fact that Intel plans to do USB3 alongside TB on their next chipset shows even they understand that TB is going to be high-end/niche product for some time to come.
I have said in the past that IF Intel had used the USB3 style connector and essentially had USB compatibility + MORE bandwidth THEN they might start appearing on everything. But they chose instead to use a connector that is hardly on anything (but newer Macs) and that isn't much different than starting over with a totally new connector and no compatibility with anything (outside breakout boxes that are essentially PCI cards in a box). When it comes down to it, TB is basically the entire PCIe bus on a single external connector.
mobilehavoc
Mar 29, 11:40 AM
Microsoft overtaking Apple for marketshare. Hmm...sounds familiar.
KilGil27
Sep 19, 02:40 PM
This is fairly remarkable, considering that the really only viable place to watch these movies is on an iPod! Yes, you can watch it on your iMac, or on your television hooked to a Mac Mini.
or... any other computer you wanted to...
or... any other computer you wanted to...
milo
Jul 20, 05:27 PM
I didn't mean to suggest the Conroe as a replacement for the G5 Quad. I was thinking more in line with replacing the duals.
Maybe I misunderstood your post, I thought you meant releasing conroe machines and not shipping quads until months later. If that were the case, people would inevitably compare the new towers to the G5 quads, regardless if they were intended to replace those models.
I think the reason they haven't announced woodcrest towers is because they want to wait for WWDC, and because the line will be split between woodcrest and conroe. It wouldn't make sense to announce half the tower lineup, people would assume that was it and react accordingly.
Maybe I misunderstood your post, I thought you meant releasing conroe machines and not shipping quads until months later. If that were the case, people would inevitably compare the new towers to the G5 quads, regardless if they were intended to replace those models.
I think the reason they haven't announced woodcrest towers is because they want to wait for WWDC, and because the line will be split between woodcrest and conroe. It wouldn't make sense to announce half the tower lineup, people would assume that was it and react accordingly.
owengot
Apr 14, 02:01 PM
I have a Rev D MacBook Air (11") and also think the Ivy Bridge will be a worthwhile upgrade. There is now no reason why that one shouldn't have USB 3.0, or Thunderbolt, plus Ivy Bridge, unlike Sandy Bridge, will have a GPU as fast as the NVIDIA 320m.
Amen to that :cool: As well as official support for OpenCL.
So when will Ivy Bridge be released?
Amen to that :cool: As well as official support for OpenCL.
So when will Ivy Bridge be released?
BornAgainMac
Apr 22, 01:31 PM
I expect Apple to have FaceTime HD on the next Air.
Machead III
Sep 19, 02:54 PM
It took my Black MB about 70 mins to download "Deuce Bigalow"
Why would you do that? :O
Why would you do that? :O
ciTiger
Apr 28, 04:06 PM
This was a long time coming!
But I hope MSFT stays in the race... Competition is good...
But I hope MSFT stays in the race... Competition is good...
Peace
Sep 1, 10:54 AM
Not sure if it's a typo or not but MacNN is saying Apple has confirmed a special event for Sept. 14th.
http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/08/31/boot.camp.mac.gui/
http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/08/31/boot.camp.mac.gui/
ctdonath
Apr 4, 12:45 PM
Very sad. Someone lost their life over something so trivial. And said that the guard has to live with knowing he took a life. :(
Sad indeed. Sympathies to the guard, who at least is alive to know what happened; if he hadn't done it, odds are too high that he wouldn't be.
Sad indeed. Sympathies to the guard, who at least is alive to know what happened; if he hadn't done it, odds are too high that he wouldn't be.
UmaThurman
Sep 3, 06:48 PM
This may be a really dumb question, but when the new MBP comes out, do y'all think it'll stay aroudn the same price range or increase?:confused:
OS X Dude
May 3, 10:49 AM
The whole point of Thunderbolt is you can daisy-chain devices (up to 6 I think), so one port goes a long way.
Besides the three-monitor doohickery on the 27", I struggle to see why 95% of people would need two ports often. But still, nice to have :)
Besides the three-monitor doohickery on the 27", I struggle to see why 95% of people would need two ports often. But still, nice to have :)
kiljoy616
May 3, 01:05 PM
Does anything use Thunderbolt yet? Will anything ever?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20036002-1.html
Yes and anyway first you have to put it out there for other companies to make stuff for it. Business class 101 :rolleyes:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20036002-1.html
Yes and anyway first you have to put it out there for other companies to make stuff for it. Business class 101 :rolleyes:
rychencop
Jan 1, 07:57 PM
Targeting is one thing. Successfully attacking is a completely different animal. They've been targeting OS X since it came out a decade ago. Successful attacks range from barely a blip on the radar to nonexistent, depending on how you define success. There's no reason to believe that attacks on IOS will be half as successful as the pitiful attacks on OS X.
i agree...until there is a credible threat created, i will not lose a second of sleep.
i agree...until there is a credible threat created, i will not lose a second of sleep.
bdj21ya
Oct 12, 12:30 PM
Kinda said how a passionate music artist must make this initiative when countries with HUGE sums of cash prefer military spending in their budgets (Canada included) yet not for world equality for medicine.
Kinda said? Actually, it's equality that they're trying to fight AGAINST here. The problem is that there's too much equality, which means they can't afford the medicine.
I'm all for philanthropy, but I don't think that red is the way to go for selling more iPods.
Kinda said? Actually, it's equality that they're trying to fight AGAINST here. The problem is that there's too much equality, which means they can't afford the medicine.
I'm all for philanthropy, but I don't think that red is the way to go for selling more iPods.
840quadra
Oct 12, 02:01 PM
Those look Burgundy to me, I was hoping for a more proper red, but alas those are Mock ups!
ergle2
Sep 10, 01:41 AM
Please explain - I have no idea what "that" is....
---
Regardless of the tool, however, it is usually much better to let the OS dynamically schedule threads across the cores. Unless the programmer has some reason to try to control this, the alternative is some resources (CPUs) being overcommitted, while other CPUs are idle.
It doesn't matter who has the better tools - it's usually better to let the OS decide microsecond by microsecond how best to schedule the CPUs, than to have the developer make those decisions at edit time.
I've used the SetProcessAffinityMask APIs fairly often, but it's always been for specific test or benchmark situations. I have a hard time thinking of a situation where a general application would want to statically control the scheduler - it's just "bad think" to even try. (Except for those weird-a$$ NUMA Opterons - you can be really scr3wed if you have to go through HyperTransport to get to memory. I check NUMA topology, and use affinity to keep the AMD architecture from killing me.)
I've owned SMP machines in the past and often found it more useful to force CPU affinity of CPU-heavy tasks to a single processor, as Windows 2000 (which was current at the time) by default had a habit of swapping it between chips, resulting in a lot of cache-dirtying. I think it was the load balancing code, but it's been a while now and I don't have those machines handy currently. However, you could see some significant improvement in processing time on some non-parallelizable cpu-bound tasks.
I've no idea if MacOS does this, but at least in the case of Core 2 it shouldn't matter anywhere near as much, as the L2 is fully shared.
---
Regardless of the tool, however, it is usually much better to let the OS dynamically schedule threads across the cores. Unless the programmer has some reason to try to control this, the alternative is some resources (CPUs) being overcommitted, while other CPUs are idle.
It doesn't matter who has the better tools - it's usually better to let the OS decide microsecond by microsecond how best to schedule the CPUs, than to have the developer make those decisions at edit time.
I've used the SetProcessAffinityMask APIs fairly often, but it's always been for specific test or benchmark situations. I have a hard time thinking of a situation where a general application would want to statically control the scheduler - it's just "bad think" to even try. (Except for those weird-a$$ NUMA Opterons - you can be really scr3wed if you have to go through HyperTransport to get to memory. I check NUMA topology, and use affinity to keep the AMD architecture from killing me.)
I've owned SMP machines in the past and often found it more useful to force CPU affinity of CPU-heavy tasks to a single processor, as Windows 2000 (which was current at the time) by default had a habit of swapping it between chips, resulting in a lot of cache-dirtying. I think it was the load balancing code, but it's been a while now and I don't have those machines handy currently. However, you could see some significant improvement in processing time on some non-parallelizable cpu-bound tasks.
I've no idea if MacOS does this, but at least in the case of Core 2 it shouldn't matter anywhere near as much, as the L2 is fully shared.
dazzer21
May 3, 11:34 AM
...that if each Thunderbolt port can support six daisy chained pieces of kit, if each one of those was a TB-equipped 30" monitor, we could have a 27" iMac with a 13-screen setup and 387" of screen real-estate?!! I need to buy a bigger house!!!!
Eidorian
May 3, 12:07 PM
:confused:I understand that Eyefinity offers a single display per connector. The best example being the 5/6 Mini DisplayPort video cards on the market.
What I have not seen are daisy chaining multiple displays from a single DisplayPort connector (via proper cabling) or from a passthrough based on a display to an additional monitor.
What I have not seen are daisy chaining multiple displays from a single DisplayPort connector (via proper cabling) or from a passthrough based on a display to an additional monitor.
QuarterSwede
Sep 16, 02:21 PM
It's certainly why I haven't. I wouldn't say the U.S. is so much behind the rest of the world (although that is true) but keep in mind U.S. carriers are all about keeping people locked into contracts. It's much easier to get a phone and change providers in Europe because they don't do hardware locking to network and prepaid is more proliferant. You can get lots of these great phones (by the way, they do make 10 megapixel camera phones now) if you buy them online, paying retail prices.
The problem is most U.S. consumers are cheap as far as I can tell, most will not pay at all for a phone and even few will pay more than $100. The carriers cannot afford to subsidize these phones because even with them partially covering the cost a consumer will be looking at an over $250 cost with a contract..
The U.S. cell phone is behind other countries because the U.S. cell phone network is behind other countries. We're just now getting 3G out in most of the country but Japan has had it and two way video calls for years.
If I could afford it and was willing to take the gamble of learning a new UI, I would get the Nokia N73. But it's hard to justify spending that much on a cell phone for me and I'm more familiar with Nokia series 40 phones.
I hear you on that. Just check out DoCoMo's (http://www.nttdocomo.co.jp/english/product/function_icon/index.html) phones (Japanese).
The problem is most U.S. consumers are cheap as far as I can tell, most will not pay at all for a phone and even few will pay more than $100. The carriers cannot afford to subsidize these phones because even with them partially covering the cost a consumer will be looking at an over $250 cost with a contract..
The U.S. cell phone is behind other countries because the U.S. cell phone network is behind other countries. We're just now getting 3G out in most of the country but Japan has had it and two way video calls for years.
If I could afford it and was willing to take the gamble of learning a new UI, I would get the Nokia N73. But it's hard to justify spending that much on a cell phone for me and I'm more familiar with Nokia series 40 phones.
I hear you on that. Just check out DoCoMo's (http://www.nttdocomo.co.jp/english/product/function_icon/index.html) phones (Japanese).
afd
Apr 11, 08:02 AM
Well, you CAN send the same audio to every device in your house, as long as the audio originates on your Mac (which includes simply plugging in any iOS device or iPod into your Mac).
How? Not unless I buy airfoil?
How? Not unless I buy airfoil?
Eidorian
Jul 14, 02:21 PM
I'm wondering how the yonah stacks up against this chip...http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=1
Compare Core Duo vs. AMD. At least until someone does a Core Duo vs. Core 2 Duo benchmark.
Compare Core Duo vs. AMD. At least until someone does a Core Duo vs. Core 2 Duo benchmark.
Tom B.
Oct 12, 05:17 PM
Nice! Still doesn't answer the mystery of the clickwheel color though
I am 99% certain that it will have a white click wheel. I think white will look better than red for the clickwheel anyway.
I am 99% certain that it will have a white click wheel. I think white will look better than red for the clickwheel anyway.
0 comments:
Post a Comment