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.
Full Laptop Refresh By Holidays?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Next Tuesday said:
*cough* plagiarism *cough*
Edit: way to change your whole message Next Tuesday
Multimedia said:
Yep... And I'm eagerly awaiting these systems. My only real concern is the the external CPU bus becoming a bottleneck, but I'll probably be buying one either way.
Next Tuesday said:
well I mean when you posted it so that we knew it was from a different source other than you
My bad, im new here and didnt know ppl were so picky. Maybe by next tuesday i will have learned more.AutumnSkyline said:
akhentek said:
And which guts would those be? I suppose it depends on just how you define full-blown, but I do plenty of audio work myself along with my video and animation work. I would consider the MB to be capable while the MBP would be more capable. I don't know of any notebook that I would categorize as a "full blown" audio workstation. Just too many pieces of hardware and capabilities not addressed in a notebook form factor.
That aside, if you need FW800 it's only available in the 17" model right now. Hopefully that changes soon, but probably not until until a major update and I think most of us don't expect that major update until sometime next year (late spring or summer).
Don't get hung up on the rpms of an HDD. How fast the platters spin is only part of the speed equation. Currently, the fastest 2.5" notebook drive available is the 160GB Hitachi, which is a 5400rpm drive and it's nearly 55% faster than the 100GB 7200rpm. Currently, the 7200rpm 80GB and the 5400rpm 100GB drives perform about the same. Also on the same level with each other are the 120GB 5400rpm and the 100GB 7200rpm, with the 160GB model being the fastest. Data density accounts for a lot of how fast a drive is. After all, even though the rotational rate may be lower on a 5400rpm drive, with a higher capacity, there can be equal or more data passing by the drive heads each second. So telling someong they need a 7200rpm drive can be misleading. By making the decision soley on rpms, they would be sacrificing both performance and capacity if their budget allows for something larger.
And I agree with everything else you said...
FSB Could Be Better But . . .
That guy ffakr is really annoying me. His BS about 8-cores being unneeded buy everyone but me is very off base. Reads like he joined the thread just to be a Troll there.
Yes I agree. But we've gotta start somewhere right? It will surely still get our processor intensive work done faster than with fewer cores no?AppliedVisual said:
That guy ffakr is really annoying me. His BS about 8-cores being unneeded buy everyone but me is very off base.
Reads like he joined the thread just to be a Troll there.Multimedia said:
Yep. In fact, I'm eagerly awaiting to see the prices on the new Xserve systems. If I can start getting those with 8 cores and 32GB RAM, that's a whole heap of rendering power in a 1U space. My render farm is mostly made of old dual AMD MP 1.2 to 1.8 GHz CPUs with 1~2GB RAM. It can't keep up, but I've been saving my pennies and will start upgrading sometime early next year.
That guy ffakr is really annoying me. His BS about 8-cores being unneeded buy everyone but me is very off base.
I know we're not the 'norm' around here, but he obviously needs to get a clue. Forums like cgfx and spinquad are full of guys salivating over the upcoming quad-core CPUs from AMD and Intel. I like to think that for every copy of Lightwave, Maya, Shake, etc.. that is sold, there's someone buying it thinking how much nicer it would run on an 8-core system vs. a 4-core system.
Most people don't really need a zillion cores though. You have to do more than wedding invitations and the occasional photoshop-job to be desperate for more than the current Mac Pro. I do some pretty heavy photo-work, and a Dual 2,5 G5 is still helping me along quite nicely actually, and some editing is fine too, so I understand most people not being all over 8 cores etc.
Besides, technobabble is quite boring, Ergle2 is the king of that here, and he's the sole reason I have stopped reading most of these posts, as he starts going on an on about how this and that inside some part of a tiny part of an an Intel-chip really works, and it's quite far beyond the scope of my interest in hardware.
Besides, technobabble is quite boring, Ergle2 is the king of that here, and he's the sole reason I have stopped reading most of these posts, as he starts going on an on about how this and that inside some part of a tiny part of an an Intel-chip really works, and it's quite far beyond the scope of my interest in hardware.
When Two or Four Cores Are Not Enough, You Will Know It Immediately
I think there is some kind of psychological schism between Mac Users who don't understand why 4, 8 or even 16 cores can boost productivity and those who do. In part I think it may be experiential.
While I take for granted I am using simple mundane boring compression applications that can use up to 4 cores EACH, others seem oblivious as to how many cores they are using for each of their applications and what they run in total simultaneously - still thinking in serial rather than parallel fashion about how they get their work done. Or they may never plan on using compression applications for anything for the rest of their lives.
Sorry for the hi-jack folks. And now back to the MB/MBP vigil. . . On the mobile front, two will have to do for the foreseeable future.
Yes but if you use applications that are already optimized for multiple cores like Toast and Handbrake and/or understand how to develop a workflow that can run multiple applications that can use all those cores simultaneously, 8 cores is extremely useful in getting work done much faster. And by the way Eight ≠ a Zillion - not even close.Reach said:
I agree the technobabble is uninteresting, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know if two cores is not enough for your particular workflow. If I had kept my Dual 2.5GHz G5 past the point when it hit the wall in January, I would have been dead in the water since February. As soon as my Dual 2.5GHz G5 would no longer function like anything more than a 1985 Mac Plus, I was not only thrown into a real physical panic, there was no question in my mind why the Quad had been created.Reach said:Besides, technobabble is quite boring, Ergle2 is the king of that here, and he's the sole reason I have stopped reading most of these posts, as he starts going on an on about how this and that inside some part of a tiny part of an an Intel-chip really works, and it's quite far beyond the scope of my interest in hardware.
I think there is some kind of psychological schism between Mac Users who don't understand why 4, 8 or even 16 cores can boost productivity and those who do. In part I think it may be experiential.
While I take for granted I am using simple mundane boring compression applications that can use up to 4 cores EACH, others seem oblivious as to how many cores they are using for each of their applications and what they run in total simultaneously - still thinking in serial rather than parallel fashion about how they get their work done. Or they may never plan on using compression applications for anything for the rest of their lives.
Good for you.AppliedVisual said:
It's only a matter of time before we the anomaly will become we the norm when it comes to taking 4 and more cores for granted. I can say without reservation that the Quad G5 has changed my life completely. I have a feeling those with no Quad experience are in the class known as "ignorance is bliss".AppliedVisual said:
Sorry for the hi-jack folks. And now back to the MB/MBP vigil. . . On the mobile front, two will have to do for the foreseeable future.
I think it all comes down to what kind of work you do. I don't do any heavy compression at all, hence my need for more cores at the moment is very limited. And that does not mean that I do not know what my two current processors are doing, it just means that for my kind of work more cores doesn't equal that much more productivity.Multimedia said:
And I do think a lot of mac-users are in my category, hence what you percieve to be unenthusiasm about dual-core clowertowns. It's not really apathy towards new technology though, it's just that I prefer more RAM (Than two GB) for example in the next Macbook Pro over more cores. But that's my needs, we all vary in that respect.
I really hate to sound stupid.
But the MBP upgrade to Core-2-duo. . . does this mean 2 Dual core processors?....i.e essentially Quad?
What makes the "2" a 2 rather than the Core-1-Duo.
But the MBP upgrade to Core-2-duo. . . does this mean 2 Dual core processors?....i.e essentially Quad?
What makes the "2" a 2 rather than the Core-1-Duo.
aaronon said:
Core 2 Duo is to Intels new line of CPU's as Rev. B is to a Mac
The C2D has better stuff in it..like 64-bit
The Core Duo wasn't 64-bit.
Oh i see, so the 2-duo is slightly misleading to a standard guy.
So Intel Core-2-duo will be intels new Pentium 4?....i.e stick around for a bunch of years with speeds just getting bigger. Or will we just keep upgrading until we get Core-32-octo. as opposed to just the frequency changing.
So Intel Core-2-duo will be intels new Pentium 4?....i.e stick around for a bunch of years with speeds just getting bigger. Or will we just keep upgrading until we get Core-32-octo. as opposed to just the frequency changing.
aaronon said:
This is kind of misleading. Kind of silly naming if you ask me. Think of it as Core Duo II, or Core Duo take 2. It isn't Core 2*Duo=Core Quatro.
aaronon said:
I think as far as desktops go adding more cores will be the fad for a while. The speeds will eventually hit a limit, an electron can only move so fast, atleast this is what my Dad always says to me when we talk about computers. In laptops it will be whatever they can do to keep it cool.
Next Tuesday said:
Sorry, that was rude of me....
I don't want your stay here to be bad, plus I'm new as well, but God, now I really feel bad..... stupid conscience or however you spell it. It's just that you don't want people saying that you stole something and said it was yours, but you didn't put anything to acknowledge the fact that you were taking it from somewhere else, leading others to believe you had taken and said it was yours when it wasn't. Sorry again forgive me? ps.... it might just be me though because I have mild OCD, and this thing about hypocrisy, and plagiarism since I was blamed of it when doing a paper and got 6 points off of what should've been a 100, so I got a 92 ( the other two points is because Im not good at bibliographies
) Sorry, sorry, sorry, again and hopefully I can get back on topic with the rest of the thread!!!! ugh but that'll prolly be tomorrow as I am collecting with my friends at someones house. AdiosI have a question related to the refreshes. I'm going to order a MacBook Pro 17'' at the online U.S. Apple Store, and because of trip schedules, it absolutely has to be delivered no later than October 26th. Do I run the risk of this not happening? I was going to order a custom version with 2 x 512 MB of RAM, but if that's the difference between getting delivered on time or not, I'll happily take the 1 x 1 GB version.
I also have a few other questions: 1. when I order, will my credit card get charged right away? 2. can I cancel the order at any time before shipping, if it draws too close to the deadline? 3. can I trust the shipping estimates given by Apple? 4. can I return it and get the full money back if it doesn't arrive on time? (it'll be shipped to a friend's house, he will return it for me if it doesn't arrive on time) 5. any other advice for this situation? (no technical advice on my choice of configuration or whether I should wait for the refreshes or not, please.)
Thanks
I also have a few other questions: 1. when I order, will my credit card get charged right away? 2. can I cancel the order at any time before shipping, if it draws too close to the deadline? 3. can I trust the shipping estimates given by Apple? 4. can I return it and get the full money back if it doesn't arrive on time? (it'll be shipped to a friend's house, he will return it for me if it doesn't arrive on time) 5. any other advice for this situation? (no technical advice on my choice of configuration or whether I should wait for the refreshes or not, please.)
Thanks
Thanks for clearing it up. Ill make sure future posts are well explained. I never had the intention of saying it was me that wrote it. I also dont know how to add links to pages in my posts. That might have helped also. But i appreciate you explaining yourself. Means alot.AutumnSkyline said:Sorry, that was rude of me....
ps.... it might just be me though because I have mild OCD, and this thing about hypocrisy, and plagiarism since I was blamed of it when doing a paper and got 6 points off of what should've been a 100, so I got a 92 ( the other two points is because Im not good at bibliographies
acidblood said:
Don't think the MBP comes with a single 1GIG stick.I do believe they all come with 2 512Meg sticks