Bear said:
Maybe IBM can't even keep up with the existing processors, let alone faster ones. I sure hope they've made some manufacturing breakthroughs, or we"ll be in deep doo doo.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
April 26th - New Macs?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe IBM can't even keep up with the existing processors, let alone faster ones. I sure hope they've made some manufacturing breakthroughs, or we"ll be in deep doo doo.
SiliconAddict said:....case in point.Tell me if all you've worked on was a 486 with 8MB of RAM you'd think it would be blazing wouldnt you. Jack her system up to 512MB and see the difference. Also a 4800 desktop drive != a 4800 laptop drive. I'm sorry but the amount of beachballing I saw when playing around with a 256MB mini system at compUSA was appalling and this was like 2 days after they got the device so its not as if its been dinked with. Do you think its just chance that all the minis at both of my local Apple stores are all jacked up to 512MB. If 256MB was enough why bother.
Trust me, I know the difference RAM makes, I'm not ignorant. My Mini has 1GB, and my Gual 1Ghz Quicksilver at work has 1.5GB. As I said, 512 makes a huge difference. She knows that her mac isn't as fast as it could be with an upgrade, but she is content with the speed that she has...it works for HER. Maybe not for YOU...but it works for HER and I'm sure there are others out there. So to make a blanket statement that anyone that thinks that 256MB is enough RAM needs to get a clue is rediculous and egocentric. Not everyone has your needs. A lot of people just use their mace for email, MS office, etc, and find that 256 is enough to allow them to do what they want to do.
Also, you're right, a 4800 laptop drive and 4800 desktop drive are not equal, but if you're going to compare two systems, why not compare ALL the specs, instead of only the ones that make your case? I was comparing a G4 800MHz iMac to a Mini. If you'll notice, the iMac is 800Mhz. The Mini is 1.25 Ghz. You see, while one mac may have a *slightly* faster hard drive, it is also has a 50% slower processor, and yet still manages the tasks required of it with only 256MB.
Regardless, I really don't feel like arguing with you about it, since there's really nothing to argue. You stated your opinion as a fact, and I disagreed with it and brought up a case where you're wrong, and there's no arguement there. She is doing fine on a machine that according to you has a substandard amount of RAM. Argue with that if you want, but it's a fact that will not change not matter how much you try to bend logic.
Change of availability at MacMall
Following a recent death of my old machine, I've been looking/configuring/pricing various PMs, using MacMall's website. Last few days, up until this afternoon, everything was listed as being in stock, shipping the same day.
About 30 minutes ago, eveything -including third party stuff like external hard drives, camcorders, etc.- switched to "call us" for availability.
Could just be a gremlin in the site. Or not.
just passing it along.
-e
Following a recent death of my old machine, I've been looking/configuring/pricing various PMs, using MacMall's website. Last few days, up until this afternoon, everything was listed as being in stock, shipping the same day.
About 30 minutes ago, eveything -including third party stuff like external hard drives, camcorders, etc.- switched to "call us" for availability.
Could just be a gremlin in the site. Or not.
just passing it along.
-e
Core Image Misconceptions
Core Image/Video is not some magical technology that makes OS X run faster, your GUI more responsive, etc. It is essentially a set of (potentially) realtime fx that applications _can_ be written to take advantage of, such as Motion 2. If your gfx card isn't on the supported list, it's unclear to me whether you will be able to use those fx at all (maybe, but not realtime, which is kind of the whole point).
Waiting for a Mac mini to support Core Image is -- nonsensical. It is something that only pro-oriented apps will really take advantage of, and if you are trying to run those on a Mac mini -- god help you.
And honestly, despite the fact that a number of cards technically support Core Image, IMO you really need a Radeon 9800 or better for it to really be useful at all.
Core Image/Video is not some magical technology that makes OS X run faster, your GUI more responsive, etc. It is essentially a set of (potentially) realtime fx that applications _can_ be written to take advantage of, such as Motion 2. If your gfx card isn't on the supported list, it's unclear to me whether you will be able to use those fx at all (maybe, but not realtime, which is kind of the whole point).
Waiting for a Mac mini to support Core Image is -- nonsensical. It is something that only pro-oriented apps will really take advantage of, and if you are trying to run those on a Mac mini -- god help you.
And honestly, despite the fact that a number of cards technically support Core Image, IMO you really need a Radeon 9800 or better for it to really be useful at all.
Nicky G said:
Man, that's too bad. I thought that Core Image was for apps like iPhoto to improve the speed which they "fix" photos, or do effects on the photos, and to provide that functionality to other developers who want to implement those functions so they are processed on the graphics card. the theoretical speed gain would be from the main proc. being relieved of graphics tasks.
I guess it would be for high end stuff too, but if you were right I guess it is not something I would gain a lot of use from.
Well in a way it is, but iPhoto already uses the Core Image like functionality that are needed to make it fast. The difference with Core Image is that all such functionality is collected from different Apple technologies and apps, put together in one package and then adjusted to make a nice consistent and powerful set of tools for developers to use in their own apps.Preclaro_tipo said:
So we're saying mostly the same thing except that Core Image won't necessarily bring any new functionality to already existing Apple apps.
Edit: I just had a look at DXoverDY's CoreImage FAQ, and it seems there's a little more to CoreImage than I had realised. CoreImage uses the programmable features in modern cards and I'm not sure how well that has been exploited by individual Apple apps until now, so upcoming iPhoto version could still benefit from CoreImage.
Now I'm even more exited about Tiger!
Erik W. said:
Maybe to tell potential customers to wait a few days before making a purchase so as not to run into complaints next week???
iMac in my cart at Apple Store still says 1-3 days, and it's a maxed out BTO. So take that for what it's worth. I'm not ordering anyhting till they update it.. I can wait as long as you can Apple.
Some_Big_Spoon said:
All this week and up to earlier today, PMs were listed as shipping "same day". Now all but the single 1.8 says that they ship in "3 - 5 days". 5 Days puts you to next Tuesday. I don't follow the ship dates close enough to say that they often change from "same day" to "3 - 5 days", but this could mean that indeed updates are coming!
How do these shipping days correlate to new computers being released? why is 3-5 better than same day. And does it usually change like that or is that what all the fuss is about.
Considering how the ship date changed across ALL stores (US/UK/others) indicates that it's not just a supply "issue". It might mean that current PM will stop shipping in preparation for a new generation. It's not a definite sign, but something that has indicated a refresh in the line several times beforeSaleenS351 said:
Yvan256 said:
Maxed out Cube has about double the CPU performance and faster/bigger HD than a Mini, so saying it's "an old computer" is not fair. [It can also get much faster graphics, but those are in the realm of ugly hacks].
This discussion is about saying "you're OK with CPU for Core Image". Not only Mac Mini (would be) owners read this forum.
And anyway, who decreted that a person expecting to optimally use Final Cut Express on a 1.4 GHz computer with a 23" HD monitor is crazy?
3GHZ OR DUAL CORE
Updates are a certainty for PM's come Tuesday. The change to 3-5 is a dead give away as it happens everytime. (every Apple product)
DUAL CORES @ ????GHZ
or a GX @ 3GHZ
That's what is going to happen and not even TS can ruin it.
Cheers to all, twill be ordering one straight away, the more cores the merrier i will be.
Updates are a certainty for PM's come Tuesday. The change to 3-5 is a dead give away as it happens everytime. (every Apple product)
DUAL CORES @ ????GHZ
or a GX @ 3GHZ
That's what is going to happen and not even TS can ruin it.
Cheers to all, twill be ordering one straight away, the more cores the merrier i will be.
So, if a 5900 gives you about 20 GFLOPS of shader power, that means that a 5200 or 9600 which benchmark at about a third of that would give you 6.66 GFLOPS (making the optimistic assumption that those general benchmarks translate directly into shader performance ratios).
A 2 Ghz G4 gives you 7 GFLOPS.
A 2 Ghz G4 gives you 7 GFLOPS.
Peyote said:
Just to follow up on this discussion: My main portable is an iBook G4/800/12". It has 640 MB of RAM, so I can't really say anything about the RAM issue, but it is certainly usable for most design tasks.
Biggest thing I've thrown at it was a 80 x 60 cm poster, most of it an image at 300 dpi. I had to run a color halftone and various adjustments on it, and that was the one time I had to leave the computer and do something else between commands, because the times were too frustrating.
In other words, this job and the odd use of iMovie are the times I think about a faster computer. For web development, smallish print jobs (even 120 page books) etc, it's just fine. I'll use this computer for at least six months from now, just waiting for an affordable laptop that can significantly improve on the performance I get from my Windows desktop, so I can finally be rid of it.
JRM PowerPod said:
Wonder when it'll be the imac's turn. Do these updates usually get applied in stages ? PMs next week, imacs week after or something ?
dayloon said:
Well, sometimes. Apple can be unpredicable. We'll probably see the PMs, iMacs and eMacs on Tuesday. and I'm thinking that we probably won't see iBook updates and Mac Mini updates until June at the WWDC.
But that makes the longest wait between ibook updates EVER (well, since 2001 anyway). I don't want to wait anymore!w_parietti22 said:
Volume and economics
someone already mentioned this earlier but I would also expect apple to be updating their macs every 6 months or so, I am anxious to find out "what gives". And hopefully with the next mac update we will find out what the hold up was all about-(come on wide-aspect ratio-screened iBooks and dual-core PM G5's)
Also, in a time of increasing mac unit growth, and substantial iPod profits; I would think that macs could benefit from higher sales volume. For example, improved vendor relationships, and cost of production and cost per unit tend to drop (according to basic laws of economics) so I would hope to see evidence of these, especially if mac base gets to a solid 5% market share.
If I buy a mac on April 29th, loaded with Panther, will I get Tiger for free?
someone already mentioned this earlier but I would also expect apple to be updating their macs every 6 months or so, I am anxious to find out "what gives". And hopefully with the next mac update we will find out what the hold up was all about-(come on wide-aspect ratio-screened iBooks and dual-core PM G5's)
Also, in a time of increasing mac unit growth, and substantial iPod profits; I would think that macs could benefit from higher sales volume. For example, improved vendor relationships, and cost of production and cost per unit tend to drop (according to basic laws of economics) so I would hope to see evidence of these, especially if mac base gets to a solid 5% market share.
If I buy a mac on April 29th, loaded with Panther, will I get Tiger for free?
Hmm...all but one of the powermacs are ready for shipping in 7 days (definite upgrade), but all but one of the iBooks are ready in 24hrs.....damn you apple wheres my 512mb RAM??
