Scroto was a cartoon character in an episode of Drawn Together. He was a Super villain and Captain Hero's arch enemy. Looking back on it now it does sound kinda gay doesn't it.
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.
More Quad-Core iMac Benchmarks Show Substantial Performance Gains
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Scroto was a cartoon character in an episode of Drawn Together. He was a Super villain and Captain Hero's arch enemy. Looking back on it now it does sound kinda gay doesn't it.
This is all well and good, but 27" is just too effin' big.
We keep a single desktop computer in our house to store and edit the master copies of all of our media. We each have laptops (MBP &MBA) as personal machines.
The 27" machine is the first time I considered moving to an iMac for our single desktop system... and it gets delivered on Tuesday (but not opened until 12/25). Our prior PC (which the iMac replaces) is 30"... but I felt that the 27" is close enough (but not perfect) that it was worth switching so that we have a common OSX architecture across our DT and Laptops.
For us... 27" is not too effin' big. It is actually just barely big enough.
I suspect that we will use this machine for 2 years. By then, I would expect a 30" iMac... and more importantly a design built on dual drives.... one with a PCIe attached SSD for OS/Apps... and a 2nd larger HDD for media.
/Jim
Well since you've deemed it socially acceptable, I figured it's the best way to communicate with you. Ya know, speak your language and all that.
It's not what you asked, it's how you asked it. You know, manners and all.
You already said that.
Don't worry, I've got you on my ignore list now, so it doesn't matter.
Oh boy! I have clearly never seen any of the cartoons you mention. I think there was malice in the choice of the name for the villain.
This speaks for itself:
It's people like you who bloat these threads with trivial nonsense that has absolutely nothing to do with the OP or anything remotely related to the topic. And by continuing to respond to your drivel I'm only enabling you and every dullard like you.
Here's your sign. Enjoy....
[
It's people like you who bloat these threads with trivial nonsense that has absolutely nothing to do with the OP or anything remotely related to the topic. And by continuing to respond to your drivel I'm only enabling you and every dullard like you.
Here's your sign. Enjoy....
[
It's not what you asked, it's how you asked it. You know, manners and all.
You already said that.
Don't worry, I've got you on my ignore list now, so it doesn't matter.
Disregarding your callous behavior, what makes you think Speedmark is any more "real world" than Geekbench? Please provide proof that Speedmark is indeed running tests simultaneously to replicate real world use, as opposed to linear start to finish tasks, i.e. copying files, encoding MP3's, etc.
I personally don't do individual tasks, one at a time. I don't know anyone who does. Until you can prove otherwise, this guy's right:
Hi, I'd like to plug my favourite benchmarking suite too.
http://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/
It's oss, covers more than most, very flexible and cross platform.
It's the best, anyone that thinks otherwise is a ****'*** **** ****
http://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/
It's oss, covers more than most, very flexible and cross platform.
It's the best, anyone that thinks otherwise is a ****'*** **** ****
His only primary argument was this:
However, once again, he's provided no proof at all that Speedmark tests applications in unison. Thus, it's still not an accurate test of real-world performance, because in reality, as you mentioned, who is seriously going to run a single application at one time, be it for work, school, etc. I could *maybe* see someone doing that on a system such as a netbook, but even then that's more due to the limitations of hardware (in terms of seeing multitasking performance decrease substantially) vs. any desire to truly run an application one at a time.
I don't know about anyone else, but when I'm using Final Cut Pro or Photoshop, I don't have *solely* those applications open.
What's really amusing though is that his original argument was that it was an unfair comparison because the Lynnfield systems had 4 GB of system RAM to Bloomfield's 8 GB (and that's what we've been trying to argue against). Several of us chimed in pointing out that memory capacity did not matter for the tests Speedmark is running, since it isn't testing applications in unison and thus whether it's 4 GB or 8 GB of system RAM, the available capacity would essentially have little-to-no impact. Maybe if we were talking about 512 MB vs. 8 GB, but yeah, lol. He's yet to actually provide substantive proof that Speedmark does test in unison, instead changing the focus of his argument to "what are real world applications?" basically. Now all he's doing is making insulting comments to others and throwing a tantrum, which is why I'm not bothering to respond to him.
His only primary argument was this:
However, once again, he's provided no proof at all that Speedmark tests applications in unison. Thus, it's still not an accurate test of real-world performance, because in reality, as you mentioned, who is seriously going to run a single application at one time, be it for work, school, etc. I could *maybe* see someone doing that on a system such as a netbook, but even then that's more due to the limitations of hardware (in terms of seeing multitasking performance decrease substantially) vs. any desire to truly run an application one at a time.
I don't know about anyone else, but when I'm using Final Cut Pro or Photoshop, I don't have *solely* those applications open.
What's really amusing though is that his original argument was that it was an unfair comparison because the Lynnfield systems had 4 GB of system RAM to Bloomfield's 8 GB (and that's what we've been trying to argue against). Several of us chimed in pointing out that memory capacity did not matter for the tests Speedmark is running, since it isn't testing applications in unison and thus whether it's 4 GB or 8 GB of system RAM, the available capacity would essentially have little-to-no impact. Maybe if we were talking about 512 MB vs. 8 GB, but yeah, lol. He's yet to actually provide substantive proof that Speedmark does test in unison, instead changing the focus of his argument to "what are real world applications?" basically. Now all he's doing is making insulting comments to others and throwing a tantrum, which is why I'm not bothering to respond to him.
Thanks for summarizing, and I couldn't agree more with you.
Forget the other posts that link to him saying he has a MB, did you bother looking at his signature???
Don't go bringing real world experience into this!
"Yea you might want to go get a teenager to help you fix your computers. Your obviously doing something wrong." LOL.
Nice to hear I am not the only one who finds OSX more stable and less likely to get virus's, malware, etc., compared to Windows. I am being facetious of course.
Cankster.
Seriously... I agree. I am baffled at all the posts saying that 27" is too big. Bigger is better, when it comes to screen size, IMO. I've been drooling over this computer (i7) for a while, but finally went to the Apple store (Pheasant Lane Mall - Woot!) to actually SEE it. OMG if it were the i7 (and not the 3.0+ core 2) I would have been out some serious cash that day.
I am not a fan of duel monitors, because they "segment" the work flow too much, and frankly they look horrible if they don't match. (I know it's a subjective moot point, but it matters to me.) A Huge main purpose monitor is what I need, and this fits the bill perfectly.
30" was the limit for me. I went back to a 24" because the 30" was really too big. I found myself moving my head a lot just to see what was on different parts of the screen.
I like the 27" screen because it like a 30" in width with a bit of the vertical height chopped off. I like the width because I can now put two browser windows side by side (can't do that on a 24"), and I don't need all the height that the 30" has....27" might be perfect.
I like the 27" screen because it like a 30" in width with a bit of the vertical height chopped off. I like the width because I can now put two browser windows side by side (can't do that on a 24"), and I don't need all the height that the 30" has....27" might be perfect.
Go to an Apple Store where one has been running ALL DAY, and stick your head right there next to it, listen hard. Should be a good example of how loud it is.
I don't know about the Apple store near you, but the stores by me are much too loud to judge how loud it is when applying it to use with a condenser mic. I know my mic can pick up running a fingertip along the top of an acoustic guitar, so it's pretty sensitive.
That is one nice thing about the Mac Pro: really damn quiet to begin with (unless really, really cranking) and it can be put on the floor. I know the previous gen iMacs (2.66ghz C2D, 9400m 20") is definitely quiet enough.
Exactly -- it's a Neumann U87 and it will record very slight sounds, close by. Which is why I use a Mac Pro (early 2008). But if I could use the iMac I most certainly would.
When is the new Mac Pro due, anyhow?
I would venture to guess when the 6 core Xeons are out, early 2010.
Both of you seem to have difficulty with basic skills in reading comprehension. The description for World Bench (not Speedmark) which was used in the tests specifically states that it uses a Multi Task test which utilizes multiple processes at the same time. It's highlighted in my posts, it's highlighted in World Bench description if you take the time to Google it or just read the article with a careful eye (like, gasp, reading the footnotes and asterisks).
I assumed that I was dealing with rational people able grasp basic English comprehension but clearly you two have violated that assumption. Neither of you can actually provide any meaningful discourse and just keep repeating the same irrelevant points.
Enjoy your bliss.
QUOTE=Bafflefish;8857958]His only primary argument was this:
However, once again, he's provided no proof at all that Speedmark tests applications in unison. Thus, it's still not an accurate test of real-world performance, because in reality, as you mentioned, who is seriously going to run a single application at one time, be it for work, school, etc. I could *maybe* see someone doing that on a system such as a netbook, but even then that's more due to the limitations of hardware (in terms of seeing multitasking performance decrease substantially) vs. any desire to truly run an application one at a time.
I don't know about anyone else, but when I'm using Final Cut Pro or Photoshop, I don't have *solely* those applications open.
What's really amusing though is that his original argument was that it was an unfair comparison because the Lynnfield systems had 4 GB of system RAM to Bloomfield's 8 GB (and that's what we've been trying to argue against). Several of us chimed in pointing out that memory capacity did not matter for the tests Speedmark is running, since it isn't testing applications in unison and thus whether it's 4 GB or 8 GB of system RAM, the available capacity would essentially have little-to-no impact. Maybe if we were talking about 512 MB vs. 8 GB, but yeah, lol. He's yet to actually provide substantive proof that Speedmark does test in unison, instead changing the focus of his argument to "what are real world applications?" basically. Now all he's doing is making insulting comments to others and throwing a tantrum, which is why I'm not bothering to respond to him.[/QUOTE]
I assumed that I was dealing with rational people able grasp basic English comprehension but clearly you two have violated that assumption. Neither of you can actually provide any meaningful discourse and just keep repeating the same irrelevant points.
Enjoy your bliss.
QUOTE=Bafflefish;8857958]His only primary argument was this:
However, once again, he's provided no proof at all that Speedmark tests applications in unison. Thus, it's still not an accurate test of real-world performance, because in reality, as you mentioned, who is seriously going to run a single application at one time, be it for work, school, etc. I could *maybe* see someone doing that on a system such as a netbook, but even then that's more due to the limitations of hardware (in terms of seeing multitasking performance decrease substantially) vs. any desire to truly run an application one at a time.
I don't know about anyone else, but when I'm using Final Cut Pro or Photoshop, I don't have *solely* those applications open.
What's really amusing though is that his original argument was that it was an unfair comparison because the Lynnfield systems had 4 GB of system RAM to Bloomfield's 8 GB (and that's what we've been trying to argue against). Several of us chimed in pointing out that memory capacity did not matter for the tests Speedmark is running, since it isn't testing applications in unison and thus whether it's 4 GB or 8 GB of system RAM, the available capacity would essentially have little-to-no impact. Maybe if we were talking about 512 MB vs. 8 GB, but yeah, lol. He's yet to actually provide substantive proof that Speedmark does test in unison, instead changing the focus of his argument to "what are real world applications?" basically. Now all he's doing is making insulting comments to others and throwing a tantrum, which is why I'm not bothering to respond to him.
[/QUOTE]
I brought up the components of SpeedMark 6 yesterday and I've mentioned Worldbench 6 already.
There's no indication that anything is running besides loading up multiple pages in FireFox from within the virtual machine.
Again you are wrong. Worldbench 6 uses a multi tasking test that opens multiple windows in Firefox while doing an encoding task using Windows Media Encoder.
Of course I have to point this out to you because you are patently incapable of reading this from my previous posts or in information found in the description of World Bench 6.
Why would they have a task named multi tasking that involved a single task?
Of course I have to point this out to you because you are patently incapable of reading this from my previous posts or in information found in the description of World Bench 6.
Why would they have a task named multi tasking that involved a single task?
Exactly -- it's a Neumann U87 and it will record very slight sounds, close by. Which is why I use a Mac Pro (early 2008). But if I could use the iMac I most certainly would.
When is the new Mac Pro due, anyhow?
LOL... .. That MIC will pick up EVERYTHING. It needs to be in it's own room.. (i.e - not very good at home studios, unless you have a sound absorbent room). It is one of my favorite mics though.. it even makes ME sound good. (I don't OWN one - Graduated Berklee College of Music, got to USE them.. LOL).
Even a mac pro would probably be to loud for that mic, if the hard drives were spinning at full speed.
iFixit has pictures of the 27" iMac and I'm guessing the sink will be the same on both i5 and i7.