Mexbearpig
Nov 25, 02:37 PM
Our power went out so we went out to get something to eat. I got a vent double chocolate chip frappuccino with a blueberry scone.and now our power is back on!
twoodcc
Mar 24, 12:26 PM
sometimes when i restart, my bigadv units start right back up. but then sometimes it doesn't
KnightWRX
May 2, 06:04 PM
LOL! Yeah... and I remember crashing faster than you click your mouse on those systems. Windows 3.0 and 3.1 were a mess. But of course... most things were back then. how far we've come.
Uh ? You say the crashing is somehow related to pre-emptive multi-tasking and yet you talk about Windows 3.0 and 3.1 which had... cooperative multi-tasking ? :confused:
I was talking about Unix systems on 386s (think BSD, think SCO UnixWare, think early Linux). Those had true pre-emptive multi-tasking and they didn't "crash faster than you click your mouse". (heck, my first DOS computer had no mouse and I don't think it ever crashed).
Crashing has nothing to do with the type of multi-tasking.
I think what he is saying is that programs that are actually doing work in the background can continue running, while those that aren't can suspend iOS style. That is how Lion works. It brings the benefits of both iOS & Mac OS.
What's working ? Is a program that's sitting in its idle loop waiting on a listen() operation not working ? Is a program that's firing a heartbeat every X seconds not working ?
Are we that ressource limited that we need to suspend these programs and have system level services to do these tasks, which the programs will register with on launch ? What's the benefit of a system level service vs the program doing it itself ?
Let's face it, it's not like a program sitting in the background is digging into the CPU much with a idle loop...
Uh ? You say the crashing is somehow related to pre-emptive multi-tasking and yet you talk about Windows 3.0 and 3.1 which had... cooperative multi-tasking ? :confused:
I was talking about Unix systems on 386s (think BSD, think SCO UnixWare, think early Linux). Those had true pre-emptive multi-tasking and they didn't "crash faster than you click your mouse". (heck, my first DOS computer had no mouse and I don't think it ever crashed).
Crashing has nothing to do with the type of multi-tasking.
I think what he is saying is that programs that are actually doing work in the background can continue running, while those that aren't can suspend iOS style. That is how Lion works. It brings the benefits of both iOS & Mac OS.
What's working ? Is a program that's sitting in its idle loop waiting on a listen() operation not working ? Is a program that's firing a heartbeat every X seconds not working ?
Are we that ressource limited that we need to suspend these programs and have system level services to do these tasks, which the programs will register with on launch ? What's the benefit of a system level service vs the program doing it itself ?
Let's face it, it's not like a program sitting in the background is digging into the CPU much with a idle loop...
macgeek18
Feb 23, 12:17 AM
Here's the normal use of my setup. School on the pc and personal on the Mac. :)
mattwolfmatt
Sep 14, 10:17 AM
...my iPhone 4 still gets the best reception of any phone I've ever owned, regardless of how I hold it or whether or not it has a case on it...
Ditto for me. I can't believe I waffled between 3GS, HTC Incredible, and iPhone 4. With 3GS 30% of my calls were dropped, with iPhone 4, 0%. Had it since July 5.
Ditto for me. I can't believe I waffled between 3GS, HTC Incredible, and iPhone 4. With 3GS 30% of my calls were dropped, with iPhone 4, 0%. Had it since July 5.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 26, 12:55 PM
Apple deserves some crap for all their ill-efforts to trademark "App Store".
App Store [TM]
App Store [TM]
mc68k
Nov 18, 09:45 PM
I'm just kind of guessing here but I think folding is costing me about $50 a month :eek:holy crap dude, thats why i fold at work. since big adv i shut off my 4ghz hackie folder
how many machines do you have running?
how many machines do you have running?
aiqw9182
Mar 24, 04:08 PM
What history? Developing crappy integrated graphics?
I missed writing "SMALL performance edge". Sort of like AMD's CPU's these last five years? Oh, guess we shouldn't talk about that.
My assessment is not based on a small performance edge. It is based on Fusion enabling a whole new set of functionality thanks to OpenCL and DirectX 11 class hardware.Whole NEW set of functionality? OpenCL's vaporware status has been around since Snow Leopard was introduced with a ton of Macs supporting it as soon as Snow Leopard was released. Nothing uses it, and if anything does it's hardly beneficial. You still haven't shown me what wonderful OpenCL apps you use. I'd love to hear what they are, I've been looking for something that uses OpenCL since Snow Leopard was released in 2009 only to find that NOTHING actually leverages it in a way that's beneficial or noticeable.
Oh, and on that note why the hell are you even mentioning DirectX if you don't use Windows? DirectX has no relation to Mac OS X.
I established my preference BEFORE watching that video. That Sandy Bridge performs so poor in that demo just confirms my choice.Once again, if you NEED such powerful OpenCL support then buy a Mac with discrete graphics. What the hell are you doing that constitutes the need for OpenCL? You still haven't answered my questions. All you are doing is avoiding them.
I missed writing "SMALL performance edge". Sort of like AMD's CPU's these last five years? Oh, guess we shouldn't talk about that.
My assessment is not based on a small performance edge. It is based on Fusion enabling a whole new set of functionality thanks to OpenCL and DirectX 11 class hardware.Whole NEW set of functionality? OpenCL's vaporware status has been around since Snow Leopard was introduced with a ton of Macs supporting it as soon as Snow Leopard was released. Nothing uses it, and if anything does it's hardly beneficial. You still haven't shown me what wonderful OpenCL apps you use. I'd love to hear what they are, I've been looking for something that uses OpenCL since Snow Leopard was released in 2009 only to find that NOTHING actually leverages it in a way that's beneficial or noticeable.
Oh, and on that note why the hell are you even mentioning DirectX if you don't use Windows? DirectX has no relation to Mac OS X.
I established my preference BEFORE watching that video. That Sandy Bridge performs so poor in that demo just confirms my choice.Once again, if you NEED such powerful OpenCL support then buy a Mac with discrete graphics. What the hell are you doing that constitutes the need for OpenCL? You still haven't answered my questions. All you are doing is avoiding them.
rmhop81
Sep 6, 12:07 PM
LOL, sucks for that guy!! :p well really depends on the price he paid.....it would really suck for him if the specs were exactly the same as the previous high end model but they aren't. Add an 80gb hard drive and a superdrive and that's another $150 or so.....all he is missing out on is the 1.83ghz processor which isn't that big of a deal.
AppliedVisual
Nov 15, 12:34 PM
You are not a developer, I take it?
Are you seriously suggesting that a developer should ship a product with features that are not only untested, but haven't even been tried out?
What do you prefer: Unpack 8 core Mac Pro, install Handbrake, run it, 50 percent CPU usage, or unpack 8 core Mac Pro, install Handbrake, run it, kaboom!
Being a developer with a fair bit of graphics programming and multithreaded development experience, I would say the solution is somewhere in-between. There's no reason software isn't being planned for the upcoming CPU architectures and newer versions being developed to handle such. In other words, it's no secret that this hardware is coming, we've known about quad-core clovertown CPUs for nearly a year.. Engineering samples started shipping several months ago (early september, IIRC). Too bad Apple doesn't make pre-release hardware available via higher-level ADC programs, only a select few get the priviledge.
Programmers should make the effort to accommodate upcoming multi-core designs into their software development cycle. Once a new system is released, it should be a minimal effort to test and tweak the software for the new system and quickly release an update, thus making their customers only wait a week or two from when the systems first ship as opposed to several weeks/months while much of an application is re-written to accommodate 8 cores since the last version was hard-coded to handle 4. And then the cycle starts again in 18 months when 12 or 16 core chips start shipping. I don't think the software industry has really warmed-up to the multi-core paradigm just yet. They have been resisting it for years as anyone who has run multiprocessor systems over the years will attest to. But this is the way it's going to be for a while and eventually we'll hit a core barrier, just as the MHz barrier popped up. Both Intel and AMD are predicting 80 to 120 cores being the max for the x86 architecture. So start planning and figuring how to micro-manage threads and fibers within your code because we'll be hitting 16 to 24 cores by 2010 and MHz per core isn't going to creep much past 3GHz. And the current thread per task, thread per CPU core mentality that many programmers have is not the proper way to approach this.
Are you seriously suggesting that a developer should ship a product with features that are not only untested, but haven't even been tried out?
What do you prefer: Unpack 8 core Mac Pro, install Handbrake, run it, 50 percent CPU usage, or unpack 8 core Mac Pro, install Handbrake, run it, kaboom!
Being a developer with a fair bit of graphics programming and multithreaded development experience, I would say the solution is somewhere in-between. There's no reason software isn't being planned for the upcoming CPU architectures and newer versions being developed to handle such. In other words, it's no secret that this hardware is coming, we've known about quad-core clovertown CPUs for nearly a year.. Engineering samples started shipping several months ago (early september, IIRC). Too bad Apple doesn't make pre-release hardware available via higher-level ADC programs, only a select few get the priviledge.
Programmers should make the effort to accommodate upcoming multi-core designs into their software development cycle. Once a new system is released, it should be a minimal effort to test and tweak the software for the new system and quickly release an update, thus making their customers only wait a week or two from when the systems first ship as opposed to several weeks/months while much of an application is re-written to accommodate 8 cores since the last version was hard-coded to handle 4. And then the cycle starts again in 18 months when 12 or 16 core chips start shipping. I don't think the software industry has really warmed-up to the multi-core paradigm just yet. They have been resisting it for years as anyone who has run multiprocessor systems over the years will attest to. But this is the way it's going to be for a while and eventually we'll hit a core barrier, just as the MHz barrier popped up. Both Intel and AMD are predicting 80 to 120 cores being the max for the x86 architecture. So start planning and figuring how to micro-manage threads and fibers within your code because we'll be hitting 16 to 24 cores by 2010 and MHz per core isn't going to creep much past 3GHz. And the current thread per task, thread per CPU core mentality that many programmers have is not the proper way to approach this.
Zaap
Jan 22, 11:29 AM
http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/5972/01sidelg.jpg
2011 CRV-EX
2011 CRV-EX
itsmeGAV
Jan 7, 10:07 AM
I was spending a hell of a lot of money a week on petrol, so it's possibly the best move I've ever made in all honesty! I will eventually buy a Mk4 R32 for show purposes only!
mharpo
Sep 27, 02:07 PM
I canceled my subscription to CR for this very reason. How can anyone rely upon their advice? Ridiculous...
Popeye206
May 2, 05:37 PM
So you're saying we should go back to Mac OS Classic cooperative multi-tasking ?
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
LOL! Yeah... and I remember crashing faster than you click your mouse on those systems. Windows 3.0 and 3.1 were a mess. But of course... most things were back then. how far we've come.
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
LOL! Yeah... and I remember crashing faster than you click your mouse on those systems. Windows 3.0 and 3.1 were a mess. But of course... most things were back then. how far we've come.
Calbretto
Apr 20, 10:28 AM
I simply can't wait for the refresh. I am ready for my first iMac... and my first home Mac. :) I use a Mac Pro G5 at work that is a few years old but an awesome machine. My home use for a Mac is less demanding than at work so I figure an iMac would be fine for my needs.
lorductape
Nov 27, 02:41 PM
this is perfect. I'm using a 17' core 2 duo desktop, with a dual monitor. right now, the monitor I have is 20; 4:3. It's rather inconvenient having to resize my windows when I switch them from monitor to monitor.
for people who can't wait, or iif diigitimes proves innacurate as usuall, try this one that I (was) planning on getting:click (http://www.shop.com/op/~Star_Logic_17_Widescreen_Flat_Panel_Display-prod-28263596-37170414?sourceid=57)
for people who can't wait, or iif diigitimes proves innacurate as usuall, try this one that I (was) planning on getting:click (http://www.shop.com/op/~Star_Logic_17_Widescreen_Flat_Panel_Display-prod-28263596-37170414?sourceid=57)
dougjnr
Jun 23, 06:10 PM
OK....this is how its going to work. Latest Mac Mini, HDMI, $600, hooked into your big LCD, persistant interent of course.
Now here is the killer part....launch an iPhone/iPad/iPod app which in turn starts iOS on the Mac Mini and BOOM, you are hooked into the whole Apple app store eco system, a whole new world of games....WHICH, I might add, can tap ino the dramatically more powerful hardware of the Mini's CPU and GPU.
So... state of the art bluetooth control, iPhone 4 running custom joypad controller app, latest Mac Mini and its hardware benifits, instant access to the app store, latest games on demand....think about it. All this could be ours within 2 - 3 months. PS3, Nintendo etc look out!
Also
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/...strike-source-for-mac-os-x/
Now here is the killer part....launch an iPhone/iPad/iPod app which in turn starts iOS on the Mac Mini and BOOM, you are hooked into the whole Apple app store eco system, a whole new world of games....WHICH, I might add, can tap ino the dramatically more powerful hardware of the Mini's CPU and GPU.
So... state of the art bluetooth control, iPhone 4 running custom joypad controller app, latest Mac Mini and its hardware benifits, instant access to the app store, latest games on demand....think about it. All this could be ours within 2 - 3 months. PS3, Nintendo etc look out!
Also
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/...strike-source-for-mac-os-x/
JFreak
Jul 18, 03:18 AM
Thing is Steve Jobs is going to pull the usual trick (stupid contracts) and only release this to the American public.
We can always hope that they also want to make business outside US.
We can always hope that they also want to make business outside US.
ibook30
Jul 14, 01:10 AM
I'm going to have to give this one a big negative.
The problem with either HD-DVD or Bluray is that neither is a standard in the next generation of DVDs.
.....
This is all Sony's fault.:mad: If they learned anything from the Betamax, they should know that when ever they try to standardize a technology, they fail.
This is way too soon to call.
Too soon to call is right.
I forgot about Sony's history in this field... :eek: they have some challenges,,,, but the way this plays out in the DVD/ Home Entertainment market is a problem....
Unless.... the DVD/ Home Entertainment market continues to converge with the PC market.. (I know I have used the word "market" too much tonight, my apologies) Perhaps the high cost of bluray DVD players will make a 30 inch iMac with bluray more attractive for the elite who want a cool new TV to play fancy DVDs on, and surf the internets while checking email from the couch. (eventually the rest of us will afford this... just a theory). But there is definitely a couple of trends likely to converge here, and soon - in the next three years , I thinks.
The problem with either HD-DVD or Bluray is that neither is a standard in the next generation of DVDs.
.....
This is all Sony's fault.:mad: If they learned anything from the Betamax, they should know that when ever they try to standardize a technology, they fail.
This is way too soon to call.
Too soon to call is right.
I forgot about Sony's history in this field... :eek: they have some challenges,,,, but the way this plays out in the DVD/ Home Entertainment market is a problem....
Unless.... the DVD/ Home Entertainment market continues to converge with the PC market.. (I know I have used the word "market" too much tonight, my apologies) Perhaps the high cost of bluray DVD players will make a 30 inch iMac with bluray more attractive for the elite who want a cool new TV to play fancy DVDs on, and surf the internets while checking email from the couch. (eventually the rest of us will afford this... just a theory). But there is definitely a couple of trends likely to converge here, and soon - in the next three years , I thinks.
miloblithe
Sep 6, 09:30 AM
Comparing the prices of the new iMacs and the Mac mini is absurd. The killer
feature of the mini is its form factor. Wake me up when you can use an iMac
as a file/download server placed in your desk drawer.
Fair enough, but what about those of us who want to buy a general purpose computer? (Probably most people)
feature of the mini is its form factor. Wake me up when you can use an iMac
as a file/download server placed in your desk drawer.
Fair enough, but what about those of us who want to buy a general purpose computer? (Probably most people)
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 12:52 PM
I'm thinking something similar. 3.5x8.5x8.5. Basically a larger MacMini with a 3.5" hard drive, dedicated graphics, and video chipset similar to the Miglia TV Max.
Exactly!!!
I media center like this would sell like crazy... small, simple and elegant. Just imagine how many switchers you would get at the same time.
Exactly!!!
I media center like this would sell like crazy... small, simple and elegant. Just imagine how many switchers you would get at the same time.
Porco
Apr 19, 04:55 PM
I've been putting a family member off buying an iMac for months in order to wait for the new ones, I hope the updates are very soon.
noservice2001
Aug 24, 08:24 PM
c'mon apple, i promise to buy one when its released...
stoid
Mar 18, 06:37 PM
Apple has had a small market share ever since Microsoft and IBM dominated the scene back in the early 90s. Apple cannot and should not try to compete on price. Instead, Apple should just continue to offer the superior computer using experience. Eventually, when people get around to buying their 2nd and 3rd computers, they will try to educate themselves and get something more than 'whatever works'. Then, they with find Apple and fall in love. Have you seen the videos about the Apple Retail Store openings? Name ANY other technology company that has support nearly that big from it's fan base. No, Apple is going to be around for awhile.
No comments:
Post a Comment