Nice ad hominem.
It saves you from having to have an actual argument.
It would be viable if Apple gets out of the computer side alltogether (no more MP's, XServes, Mini's, iMacs or laptops).
The T5500 is a DP system. Yes, the base CPU's may not be those in the base MP Octads (pre 56xx parts based systems), but it was and is possible to opt for different parts (i.e. faster if needed).
WTH?
). Tweaked Vista, it's not far off, but in operation, it works much better (even after SP1 and SP2, which improved it a bit more). There's been members besides myself that use both and have had more issues with OS X lately than Win7 (RAID, audio, eSATA cards to name a few). And for workstation class systems, this is extremely important. It's perhaps odd when you think of the not to distant history between Apple and MS's OS products, but I've no reason to doubt the posts available on MR.Well to me, in a case of 2x systems and one goes down, the other becomes the "backup", as the other will be used to help search for solutions (web), or test hardware in the event something is suspect (board, PSU,...). Whether it's the primary system or not.
It's possible, but I doubt it, as Apple likes to have full control over everything. Licensing would provide some, and a validation program even more, but there's still limits as to the extent it could happen.
This is a very valid point IMO, and the biggest reason for all the posts and multiple threads that exist on the next MP revision. Every other major player in the enterprise market releases information that IT planners use to gauge what products they're interested in for their company (whether it be a single pro or a Fortune 100 sized entity).
They have limited resourses (i.e. human), so they in fact do have to prioritize what they do, and you can bet it's based on what products have the highest ROI in terms of development costs/profit margins of expected sales.
TV are an afterthought compared to others (Apple even refers to this particular product as a "hobby"). Comments such as this indicate you're no pro either. Pros have to plan their purchases (i.e. MTBR = Mean Time Between Replacement, which is a planned lifecycle of a product). It's typically 3 - 5 yrs, depending on what it's used for. And when a planned purchase doesn't materialize (nor are any announcements surface), it makes them panic, and eventually scramble around for an alternative solution.
It's a solution, but one I wouldn't expect to happen if Apple's still selling other computers (iMac, Mini, or laptops, including the Air).
And you failed again.
That is, by definition, competition. Why not let somebody make a clone netbook? Or a clone nettop? Or a clone game system? Or a clone car onboard computer?
Pure ignorance. What do they sell? Thats right, a Mac Pro. Is 8 processors not enough for you? What exactly do you do that stresses 8 2.93ghz processors so much that its hurting your productivity because its too slow?
Which means they save a half billion $ in R&D and production investment costs at the price of disappointing a very small group of people.
Which is exactly what it would be, nothing. Since Apple is making $250 profit on every iPhone and iPad sold, a pathetic $50/clone for a few thousand machines is not even worth them investing the time.
You had nothing to argue against. What you said was meaningless.
(more crap to make Windows even more unstable)
False. Microsoft has been playing catchup and copycat since 1984 when windows 1.0 was released in 1985.
Ah, so you believe your opinions are facts? No wonder you don't listen to anybody else.
win7 is a nice setp up, runs smoothly, but still has the backend registry crap. at least UAC is a bit better
the MacPro/iMac line may not have been de-prioritised, but they are giving A LOT of time and devotion to other ventures such as mobile computing, and the software side of things. lucky however, the desktop computers do not need to be updated monthly/half yearly such as the notebook line or the software that runs on themApple is not de-prioritising anything. They update their products when components are available in the right quantity and the right price to make an improvement over the product they have.
Apple's pro line is highly profitable, they may not sell them in the millions like iPhones, but it's an integral part of their business, get over yourselves.
nanofrog said:They have limited resourses (i.e. human), so they in fact do have to prioritize what they do, and you can bet it's based on what products have the highest ROI in terms of development costs/profit margins of expected sales.
Most products have had a fairly regular update cycle, but some such as the
NO! dont say that!
the imacs seem to be selling really well! the mac minis too. the MPs not so much, as people are slowly realising that they will never utilise that amount of power!
investment vs longevity i guess! hard to get right
And there are some people (scientists with big data sets, and people who do rendering work on movies) who can easily take advantage of more power than eight cores at 2.93 GHz offers. I'm sure you've heard of render farms.
Apple doesn't actually manufacture anything. They use other companies as either an OEM or ODM.
There are instances where such a system is in fact too slow. Think clusters, which were created for such purposes (animation and scientific research are a couple of areas that benefit from these types of systems).
Sorry, I don't buy into a company such as Apple telling me what I can and can't use/do.
First off, neither Apple or Microsoft created the GUI. Apple got their beginnings from Xerox, when their board didn't realize what their engineers on the West Coast had created, foolishly scrapping the projects (which also included the mouse).
The Registry is the one aspect I truly wish they'd do away with. It's time for a major update already.win7 is a nice setp up, runs smoothly, but still has the backend registry crap. at least UAC is a bit better
There you go... stating the obvious again.
For home users/enthusiasts, you're right. They probably won't push the system that hard.
That can be difficult, and with recent systems, seems to have gotten harder for non-pros. The increased pricing doesn't help, and the performance increases of the mainstream processors from Intel further makes it a bit tougher.
That is false information.
Ah, so because there are a sparse few that want more power Apple should invest in developing a new ultra-high-end machine, just for them?
And by definition, clusters can add more units for more power.
Then don't buy from them. Simple as that.
Its no different with Apple. I had to download the drivers for my video card from ATI's website because OSX didn't support it out of the box. If OSX doesn't have the device-specific drivers needed it will treat it as a generic device (such as with digital cameras and video cards). Its up to Apple if they want to include the third party driver as part of the core OS installation.
Proper research, such as buying a Mac where 99% of everything is completely plug-n-play.
Or the iTunes "media kind" sync problem that took them 4 months to release a fix?
Actually, Apple did. They were the first to make it public, Xerox dropped the ball and lost out.
Actually they have been lagging behind and playing copycat from Windows 1.0, LONG before XP!
Simply there is little more left to do beyond adding eye candy. 10.6 got rid of all the legacy code and trimmed the fat as much as possible without affecting any of the look or feel.
Not in the least. If you actually did a little research, you'd see its been happening throughout the history of the personal computer.
HA! Not even pathetically close!
Not hardly. Do you read the front page?
The way you posted your statement gave the solid impression that the MP was the end all, be all of every computer on the planet. It's not.
I don't anymore, as the last one I bought had too many limitations for what I'm doing. It was returned within the 14 days.
Then why do you act as if Macs and OS X are absolute perfection (meaning ZERO flaws/limitations)?
Not in my experience. Add in other hardware that's common in the server and workstation environment, things can go badly wrong, and fast.
They shipped it first. What they did NOT do, was INVENT it. I see a very clear distinction there.
Keep in mind, I said recent times (and even a decade isn't exactly recent with computers). Then when I think in terms of what happend in 1980, that's ANCIENT in the realm of computers and software.
I take it you're ignoring the Cocoa vs. Carbon issues that plague some users?
You've made no sense here at all.
Then what do you call OS X's increasing bugs? The height of perfection?!?
i guess there are positives and negatives for it. the negatives seem to outweigh the positives after a few monthsThe Registry is the one aspect I truly wish they'd do away with. It's time for a major update already.
hello kettleThere you go... stating the obvious again.
there are people that dont seem to get that, i just thought that i would state it im not happy with it, as the notebooks performance is terrible.yea without doubt unfortunately. that will drive the overall price of computers up i guess. the demand for power in notebooks demands smaller components to be made using less power, which equals more expensive.
mmhhhmmm. as much as i hate thatAnd the device market is bigger than the laptop market in terms of profit/quarter, so it makes a lot of sense from a financial POV. They're in business to make a profit afterall....
of course. 90% of home users wont even require half the specs! i myself probably do not require my i7 CPU capabilities, but i certainly do require the 12GB that i am about to acquire for it. the focus for development (and therefore the targets for the consumers) is in the wrong areas. we do not need faster CPUs, dual core would be fine! give us more RAM, faster HDDs (i am completely against how SSDs have been developed) and better memory management. maybe even way to store the OS onto a ROM on the motherboard or something would increase performance incredibly! that would only require ~10GB, quite cheap im sure.
oh yea it definitely had a massive decrease in sales. not to mention that sound bug! that was horrific. does it still exist for 10.5 users?
thats true. didnt think of that point. calls for more powerful computers but not as many of them. hmm
i think the recent performance increases of the mobile chips (Arrandale) were outrageous. i wouldnt call them impressive at all. charging all this money for not much of an increase. but that is moore's law i guess and it wont increase much more until a breakthrough technology comes out. the rate at which the new computers are coming out does make it extremely hard, more so for the informed of us! get on the tick? get on the tock? etc.
Well, smaller transistors allows both higher efficiencies and more can be packed in on a die. Both are important, as companies want lower power bills, and laptop consumers want longer battery life. More transistors can also provide performance improvements by adding newer features, such as what came with the Nehalem based parts (integrated memory controller, Turbo Boost,...). Yet for similar or less power consumption than was possible with the previous process.the demand for power in notebooks demands smaller components to be made using less power, which equals more expensive.
Faster clocks are the best way to improve single threaded applications though, assuming the system has had other bottlenecks addressed (i.e. RAM and disk throughput).
That would still essentially be SSD though, as you're talking about Flash. SSD makes it faster by using a multi-channel controller.
No idea.
It's also still cheaper for the systems as well, when you look at total cost vs. workload accomplished (includes operations costs such as power, HVAC, floor space,...).
That's the way it goes. It was a big architectural change (not cheap), but real world benefits aren't impressive, as the software's typically not capable of using it fully.
the costs to go smaller increase though, pushing production price up. then there are performance disadvantages when trying to go too small. i get that people want to be mobile, i just dont get why it has to (eventually) eradicate the powerful machines.
true, for single threaded apps most definitely. look at the end user though, using Mail + iTunes + Safari etc. the bottle neck there would clearly be mechanical hard drives and more importantly internet browsing speed. they wouldnt even be bothered by CPU/RAM speeds.
true, that it would be, i think an on-board NAND chip would make the system extremely snappy though! keeping the OS seperate to the apps/user documents is important i feel.
the actual main problem is with the controller. each cell within a SSD can withstand writing 100GB per day for a few hundred years. the controller is likely to only last 10 years at best.
the thing i hate most is that the controller does not have a variable read/write "buffer", its limited to 512kb - even if your OS is using 4kb blocks, thus the term "write amplification". seems a bit silly to me. they are lucky that TRIM has recently been fully supported plus the money that you can make doing all that extra stuff!
well it was almost 3 architectural changes in 1! (3 features i guess).
Die shrinks usually balance their cost with the fact that the yields are increased, so there's enough parts per wafer to keep production costs in check. Architecture changes OTOH, are where the greatest cost variable comes in. That is, if it's major, it's going to be more R&D per processor.
RAM capacity and HDD throughput would be more important (reduce the need to unload RAM, and random access performance on mechanical isn't that wonderful).
It's easier for board makers to allow users to chose between HDD or SSD, primarily depending on budget.
No.
And the numbers shown in the specifications of SSD's are manipulated statistics.The tech is too new, and still needs time to mature. Namely the NAND has to be changed out for a more robust form in terms of write cycles.the controller is likely to only last 10 years at best.
Software drags butt compared to hardware.
developing yup all that sorta stuff. is that why some of the recent chips are so costly?
RAM for performance - yes i guess so. hdd capacity isnt really a bottleneck, more of a capacitative limitation that can cause bottlenecks lol. id prefer faster internet then a faster hdd atm
oh there are a few boards with NANDS? kinda cool. 10GB isnt that hard to come buy - still a bit expensive but give it a few years. but it probably wont happen - im just dreaming
reads are fine of courseNo.
MLC = 1E4 write cycles per the manufacturer
SLC = 1E5 (and at a price premium)
Most are MLC, so worst case, the cell only lasts for 10,000 writes. Then it's dead.
1. They "toss out" the performance data of the worst 10% of the cells.
2. Writes are written to empty disks (each cell wears evenly) /= Real World conditions
Wait for long term data to come out. It's not going to match the numbers that have been published by manufacturers. The reason is simple, as the OS and applications consume most of the capacity (in most cases, as the capacity of the drive isn't that big). The remaining capacity is written/over-written far faster, and those cells will wear far faster.
For Reads, Yes. They can read, read,.... without problems. It's the Write cycles that are SSD's Achilles Heel.
some sort of non-volative SD RAM maybe? what other technologies are there?
true lol, right as alwaysBut the controllers will develop over time as well. But as per 10yrs, that's longer than most systems survive. So in term so computer tech, that's ancient.
. buttSoftware drags butt compared to hardware.
. unfortuntaely yes. no way to fix it either (as i code code )IMO, yes. But there's other factors too, such as expected sales volume and desired margins.
I was thinking in terms of throughput, not capacity. Mechanical sucks at random access compared to SSD's.RAM for performance - yes i guess so. hdd capacity isnt really a bottleneck, more of a capacitative limitation that can cause bottlenecks lol. id prefer faster internet then a faster hdd atm
Yep. ASUS does that on some of their boards, and I'd think EVGA does on a few as well. Not sure about anyone else, but it's on the high-end retail models that you tend to find it.oh there are a few boards with NANDS? kinda cool. 10GB isnt that hard to come buy - still a bit expensive but give it a few years. but it probably wont happen - im just dreaming
That article is beyond vague, as they've no test methodology, and it even states it's "estimates".
I look at it as a system as a whole. But the primary limitations are the NAND itself. SLC is better, but few users are using it (that's meant for enterprise systems, as they've the budgets for it).
There's newer forms of Flash, such as FeRAM. Write cycles of 1E16.
No one here is claiming Windows 7 is magical. But it's far better than Vista, and it's better than XP.
