Sounds Good
Apr 14, 10:15 PM
Nah, no feathers were ruffled.
Just trying to show some FEELING by using UPPER CASE words. ;)
Just trying to show some FEELING by using UPPER CASE words. ;)
mozumder
Apr 13, 12:45 AM
This really does look like an Aperture for Video!
I'm curious to see what the full media cataloging is going to be like. I think that part really changes the workflow most.
The people complaining about Color going away are going to be happy with the integrated color correction and color grading, especially if it's on the level of Aperture. You can pretty much do any possible color correction and grading with Aperture. Sure, plug-ins exist for Aperture, but the built in color correction is actually fine for everything once you know how to work it, and works at a pro level where most plugins cause it to look amateurish.
I really see the new update as a perfect complement to dSLR-based video workflows. A dSLR with FCP X and its built-in color grading and correction basically means the end of all other production workflows.
I'm curious to see what the full media cataloging is going to be like. I think that part really changes the workflow most.
The people complaining about Color going away are going to be happy with the integrated color correction and color grading, especially if it's on the level of Aperture. You can pretty much do any possible color correction and grading with Aperture. Sure, plug-ins exist for Aperture, but the built in color correction is actually fine for everything once you know how to work it, and works at a pro level where most plugins cause it to look amateurish.
I really see the new update as a perfect complement to dSLR-based video workflows. A dSLR with FCP X and its built-in color grading and correction basically means the end of all other production workflows.
dante@sisna.com
Oct 26, 03:35 AM
Open and doing something. Safari, Mail, iTunes, and working in photoshop probably won't benefit much from quad cores. Batching in PS, Aperture and doing a render in FCP would.
I am on the brink of buying something. What, time will tell. If the quad core does make a marked difference when running PS and at most one background process I'll consider it. Otherwise its a Dual core 2.66 for me.
I could not disagree with you more. Our G5 and Mac Pro Quads give us an extra production hour, at least, per day, using many of the apps you mentioned above. It is up to the user the know how to push these boxes.
Just today, we processed 8.7 Gig of Photoshop documents (high res art scans from a lambda flatbed of 4x8 foot originals at 300 dpi -- i know the artist was crazy, but it is what we GOT.) -- We open all this data over 20 docs, changed RGB to CMYK, adjusted color, resized to a normal size, sharpened, added masks and saved. We did all this in 40 minutes -- that is 2 minutes per average size doc of 600MB.
Are you really going to tell me that my G5 Dual 2.7 could hang like this.
No Way -- We had activity monitor open -- Photoshop used an average of 72% off ALL FOUR PROCESSORS.
We did use safari at the same time to download a template for the art book (250 MG) and we had a DVD ripping via Mac the Ripper as well.
Quad Core Rules. Soon to be OCTO.
I am on the brink of buying something. What, time will tell. If the quad core does make a marked difference when running PS and at most one background process I'll consider it. Otherwise its a Dual core 2.66 for me.
I could not disagree with you more. Our G5 and Mac Pro Quads give us an extra production hour, at least, per day, using many of the apps you mentioned above. It is up to the user the know how to push these boxes.
Just today, we processed 8.7 Gig of Photoshop documents (high res art scans from a lambda flatbed of 4x8 foot originals at 300 dpi -- i know the artist was crazy, but it is what we GOT.) -- We open all this data over 20 docs, changed RGB to CMYK, adjusted color, resized to a normal size, sharpened, added masks and saved. We did all this in 40 minutes -- that is 2 minutes per average size doc of 600MB.
Are you really going to tell me that my G5 Dual 2.7 could hang like this.
No Way -- We had activity monitor open -- Photoshop used an average of 72% off ALL FOUR PROCESSORS.
We did use safari at the same time to download a template for the art book (250 MG) and we had a DVD ripping via Mac the Ripper as well.
Quad Core Rules. Soon to be OCTO.
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
pdjudd
Oct 8, 09:19 AM
...but who has the market share?
In smart phones? I believe Nokia and RIM are the big ones - and they are both vendors that have a high degree of control over the software and hardware. On the desktop market it clearly is MS, but it's not really accurate to say that they got that way due to availability on every hardware system under the sun. Microsoft's successes are due to bulding up from prior successes. No surprise their biggest success was practically given to them by a bone headed decision by IBM.
RIM is one proof that you can get tons of market share even when you control the whole widget to a high degree. The second component is having enough SKU's to accommodate different needs. Of course it can become very unwieldy very quickly.
Google's biggest problem is avoiding the pitfalls that Microsoft fell into - trying to have a product that does everything in a market that tends to have difficulty in making choices. Either you get it right and maintain it with a focused plan, or you just release a new product every few months and see if it sticks somewhere.
We cannot say that Google will succeed with this strategy simply because we have a hard time predicting how it will happen - there are too many players vigorously competing. We don;t have an situation like the desktop market where an IBM mentality of thinking can just hand over the market to Google. Just because you attach "Google" and "Open" to something doesn't mean that it's going to succeed. And even if it does, succeed, it could be for a different reason altogether.
If I was a gambling person, I would say that ranking isn't going to be the factor to look at since all the contenders are going to be really close to each other - its not going to matter if "Google is in Second" because they will have to contend with a market where they can go to third in 6 months. In other workds - its who can do the best at leveraging one success into another - and in a market such as this - anybody can do that.
In smart phones? I believe Nokia and RIM are the big ones - and they are both vendors that have a high degree of control over the software and hardware. On the desktop market it clearly is MS, but it's not really accurate to say that they got that way due to availability on every hardware system under the sun. Microsoft's successes are due to bulding up from prior successes. No surprise their biggest success was practically given to them by a bone headed decision by IBM.
RIM is one proof that you can get tons of market share even when you control the whole widget to a high degree. The second component is having enough SKU's to accommodate different needs. Of course it can become very unwieldy very quickly.
Google's biggest problem is avoiding the pitfalls that Microsoft fell into - trying to have a product that does everything in a market that tends to have difficulty in making choices. Either you get it right and maintain it with a focused plan, or you just release a new product every few months and see if it sticks somewhere.
We cannot say that Google will succeed with this strategy simply because we have a hard time predicting how it will happen - there are too many players vigorously competing. We don;t have an situation like the desktop market where an IBM mentality of thinking can just hand over the market to Google. Just because you attach "Google" and "Open" to something doesn't mean that it's going to succeed. And even if it does, succeed, it could be for a different reason altogether.
If I was a gambling person, I would say that ranking isn't going to be the factor to look at since all the contenders are going to be really close to each other - its not going to matter if "Google is in Second" because they will have to contend with a market where they can go to third in 6 months. In other workds - its who can do the best at leveraging one success into another - and in a market such as this - anybody can do that.
matticus008
Mar 20, 06:33 PM
Is there anybody here who has ever changed their mind about digital rights management, i.e., accepted and then rejected it or rejected it and then accepted it over time? We've heard many members trying to convince others and I wonder if everybody has their mind permanently made up.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Actually, I have. I'd been vehemently opposed to both the DMCA and DRM for the past several years (what's a good liberal to do?). I always held the opinion that it wasn't really doing anyone any real harm. I buy music, and the music I downloaded was probably not music I'd buy anyway, so I didn't see it harming sales. But then I came across more people like many in this thread, who believe that they are entitled to more than they agreed to or paid for, and who justify and rationalize their piracy to the point where it's just absolutely ridiculous, and now I see why DRM exists--because people don't actually want "fair use" or a way to preview music before buying it and supporting the artists they like. All they want is free music that they can pretend they own and control in a manner to which they've never been allowed by law.
Before digital files, no one would have argued that copying a CD and giving it away was wrong. But now the scale is much larger and it's much easier, and there are people pretending that it's legal or that it's now okay because the RIAA is somehow more corrupt than it was 10 years ago when filesharing was a niche activity for technophiles.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Actually, I have. I'd been vehemently opposed to both the DMCA and DRM for the past several years (what's a good liberal to do?). I always held the opinion that it wasn't really doing anyone any real harm. I buy music, and the music I downloaded was probably not music I'd buy anyway, so I didn't see it harming sales. But then I came across more people like many in this thread, who believe that they are entitled to more than they agreed to or paid for, and who justify and rationalize their piracy to the point where it's just absolutely ridiculous, and now I see why DRM exists--because people don't actually want "fair use" or a way to preview music before buying it and supporting the artists they like. All they want is free music that they can pretend they own and control in a manner to which they've never been allowed by law.
Before digital files, no one would have argued that copying a CD and giving it away was wrong. But now the scale is much larger and it's much easier, and there are people pretending that it's legal or that it's now okay because the RIAA is somehow more corrupt than it was 10 years ago when filesharing was a niche activity for technophiles.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 09:34 AM
Anyone know the current price of each 2.66GHz Woodcrest? I just got up and am too lazy to Google yet.
At $851 seems like the 2.33GHz Clovertown is not all thaat expensive.
Thanks Umbongo.
Woodcrest:
* Xeon DP 5150: 2.66 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $690
* Xeon DP 5160: 3.00 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $851
Clovertown:
X5355 2.66GHz 1333MHz 8MB $1172
E5345 2.33GHz 1333MHz 8MB $851
Wow only $161 more than the 2.66GHz Woodcrests for each 2.33GHz Clovertown or the same price as the current 3GHz Woodcrest. Man that looks like the Dual Clovertown will only cost no more the current $3.3k 3GHz Woodcrest - maybe even a little less if Apple wants to get aggressive with like $2999. That's $700-$1k less than I was expecting. Fantastic!
So for +$642 you would gain 2.66GHz in power or one more processor's worth of crunchability. :p
Now I'm getting seriously excited. Bring 'em on!
BTW Looks like Apple is way overcharging for the 3GHz Woodcrest upgrade. Only cost them $322 more - probably less off the published price list - yet they are asking for $800. That doesn't seem fair to me. Does it to you? I would think that $500 would be a more reasonable upgrade price for something that cost them about $300.
At $851 seems like the 2.33GHz Clovertown is not all thaat expensive.
Thanks Umbongo.
Woodcrest:
* Xeon DP 5150: 2.66 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $690
* Xeon DP 5160: 3.00 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $851
Clovertown:
X5355 2.66GHz 1333MHz 8MB $1172
E5345 2.33GHz 1333MHz 8MB $851
Wow only $161 more than the 2.66GHz Woodcrests for each 2.33GHz Clovertown or the same price as the current 3GHz Woodcrest. Man that looks like the Dual Clovertown will only cost no more the current $3.3k 3GHz Woodcrest - maybe even a little less if Apple wants to get aggressive with like $2999. That's $700-$1k less than I was expecting. Fantastic!
So for +$642 you would gain 2.66GHz in power or one more processor's worth of crunchability. :p
Now I'm getting seriously excited. Bring 'em on!
BTW Looks like Apple is way overcharging for the 3GHz Woodcrest upgrade. Only cost them $322 more - probably less off the published price list - yet they are asking for $800. That doesn't seem fair to me. Does it to you? I would think that $500 would be a more reasonable upgrade price for something that cost them about $300.
Multimedia
Oct 31, 05:01 PM
Can you elaborate on that? I have a pending Mac Pro purchase for my recording studio, based on Pro Tools, and I can't decide if I would benefit from the additional cores. I know Pro Tools can't utilize more then 2 at a time, but I'm wondering if all the additional processing (virtual effects, instruments, etc) would get a boost...Think long term. All the pro software is being re-written right now to take advantage of more cores at once. So short term you're right. But knowing how processor intensive music applications in particular are, not unlike video application compression work, you're gonna be glad you waited for the 8-core intstead - if you can wait since we don't really know the WHEN part for sure. Guessing November 14th don't make it so til the release hits the web. :)
Mord
Jul 12, 01:54 PM
I am very disappointed in you Hector , you of all people should know better then to post something like this. Do u not realise that the Intel deal ment apple dosen't have to do it's own R&D anymore when it came to chip sets.
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
any and ever motherboard has been designed with the chips lay out and logic requested by the vendor, in this case apple, the fact that they don't develop their own electronics changes nothing, freescale/IBM made the chipsets before the switch nothing has changed, apple outsourced the design of the board to intel sure but they are paying intel to do so somehow, anyway, the cost of support and manufacture rockets up too.
more i'm disappointed in you, i haven't seen you post in a year or so and your still the same childish n00b who completely misses the point.
the mac pro will be a pro machine, apple has never done a consumer tower and likely never will.
woodcrest is just conroe with SMP, overclocking is exactly the same, as in non existent due to EFI. professionals do not overclock their macs.
go play with your toys.
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
any and ever motherboard has been designed with the chips lay out and logic requested by the vendor, in this case apple, the fact that they don't develop their own electronics changes nothing, freescale/IBM made the chipsets before the switch nothing has changed, apple outsourced the design of the board to intel sure but they are paying intel to do so somehow, anyway, the cost of support and manufacture rockets up too.
more i'm disappointed in you, i haven't seen you post in a year or so and your still the same childish n00b who completely misses the point.
the mac pro will be a pro machine, apple has never done a consumer tower and likely never will.
woodcrest is just conroe with SMP, overclocking is exactly the same, as in non existent due to EFI. professionals do not overclock their macs.
go play with your toys.
bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 08:48 AM
Those "servers": each server has two Intel Quad-Core Processors running at 50W, 24GB of memory and a 120GB disk drive. Sounds like a nicely packed PC doesn't it?
It doesn't take a smart person to prune information out to support their claim, while redacting information which doesn't. Why didn't you include the full spec?
"Weta Digital uses HP�s BladeSystem c7000 chassis with BL2x220 server modules, with redundant HP Virtual Connect networking modules, full HP redundant thermal logic power supplies and fans, redundant management modules, each server had two Intel L5335 50w processors, 24GB memory and a mixture of 60GB and 120GB hard disk drives."
Most definitely NOT PCs. Sorry, try again.
It doesn't take a smart person to prune information out to support their claim, while redacting information which doesn't. Why didn't you include the full spec?
"Weta Digital uses HP�s BladeSystem c7000 chassis with BL2x220 server modules, with redundant HP Virtual Connect networking modules, full HP redundant thermal logic power supplies and fans, redundant management modules, each server had two Intel L5335 50w processors, 24GB memory and a mixture of 60GB and 120GB hard disk drives."
Most definitely NOT PCs. Sorry, try again.
skunk
Mar 26, 01:31 PM
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.Do you have a source for this extraordinary claim?
cocky jeremy
May 16, 02:53 PM
I used to never get dropped calls on AT&T and lastnight alone i had 2-4. To top that off, i called my GF and it was ringing (at least on my end) and her phone never even rang. Called both of my parents, same thing. They were 5 feet away from me at the time. WTF. :eek:
ct2k7
Apr 24, 04:59 PM
the actions of "a few countries" that are many miles apart (so by all rights should have different cultures) but have one thing in common, ie islam, are a representation of the effects of islam.
islam is unpleasant and, i guess for want of a better word, evil.
Again, correlation does not mean causation. You should try to understand that. It's a very basic principle in analysis. You've only looked at one thing they have in common. Have you not noticed that the countries there are somewhat within a closer proximity region?
What you have said, in the latter, is entirely subjective, and your view is not shared by the 1.5 billion (?) follows of the religion.
Did you know that Tony Blair's sister in law, Lauren Booth converted to Islam not so long ago? She thought Islam oppressed women and that's why she converted to it... :rolleyes: Along with Yvonne Ridley... :eek:
islam is unpleasant and, i guess for want of a better word, evil.
Again, correlation does not mean causation. You should try to understand that. It's a very basic principle in analysis. You've only looked at one thing they have in common. Have you not noticed that the countries there are somewhat within a closer proximity region?
What you have said, in the latter, is entirely subjective, and your view is not shared by the 1.5 billion (?) follows of the religion.
Did you know that Tony Blair's sister in law, Lauren Booth converted to Islam not so long ago? She thought Islam oppressed women and that's why she converted to it... :rolleyes: Along with Yvonne Ridley... :eek:
pyramid6
Sep 12, 03:57 PM
You want me to pay the same amount for the content another $300 for a new VCR, and it is almost as good as what I have? Plus I'm going to have to wait 2+ hours for it to download, plus nothing extra. Granted I probably will buy it. What is it with this Cult called Mac?
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 06:32 PM
Maybe not in the New Testament, but certainly in the Old.
Nope, not in the Old Testament either. There is a recounting of events which say what happened, but there is no commandment from God to "urge the believers to battle. If there are among you 20 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 200...... And if there are among you 100 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 1000 of those who have disbelieved...(qur'an 8:65) to this day.
The New Testament Abrogates the Old Testament anyway, so it's not relevant to Christians.
Nope, not in the Old Testament either. There is a recounting of events which say what happened, but there is no commandment from God to "urge the believers to battle. If there are among you 20 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 200...... And if there are among you 100 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 1000 of those who have disbelieved...(qur'an 8:65) to this day.
The New Testament Abrogates the Old Testament anyway, so it's not relevant to Christians.
dethmaShine
May 2, 09:45 AM
This is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine." By continuously bringing up inane points like the above, not only are you not helping the situation, you're perpetuating a useless mentality in order to prove your mastery of vocabulary.
Congratulations.
Really? If they cannot differentiate b/w viruses, they have no right to comment on them. There's some basic education involved in dealing with such things.
If you cannot differentiate b/w a guest and an intruder, it's not my fault.
Congratulations.
Really? If they cannot differentiate b/w viruses, they have no right to comment on them. There's some basic education involved in dealing with such things.
If you cannot differentiate b/w a guest and an intruder, it's not my fault.
CuttyShark
Apr 12, 11:23 PM
A bad workman always blames his tools. ;)
Cheers!!
Cheers!!
hunkaburningluv
Apr 9, 06:04 AM
Apple will buy Nintendo eventually.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
I doubt it - ninty are make some serious money on every console/handheld unit sold, they are set for the foreseeable future. IMO, while the iOS is great for short bursts of gaming, it will never replace a dedicated gaming machine
Doesn't matter. Apple took in two head gaming executives. Whether they called them up or were called up, they now have major gaming players in their family. It's a pretty clear sign that they will be getting into gaming in some way.
when they get Miyamoto or Iwata, then I'll be interested
These people are fleeing the "yellow light of death” on PS3 or "red ring of death' on 360. The consoles are so poorly made that broken PS3's seldomly fetch $50 on eBay.
Apple has a real opportunity to make a name in gaming as gamers know quality and appreciate being taken seriously.
that's well, ********, to be honest, RROD has pretty much been eliminated and YLOD wasn't particularly widespread....
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
I doubt it - ninty are make some serious money on every console/handheld unit sold, they are set for the foreseeable future. IMO, while the iOS is great for short bursts of gaming, it will never replace a dedicated gaming machine
Doesn't matter. Apple took in two head gaming executives. Whether they called them up or were called up, they now have major gaming players in their family. It's a pretty clear sign that they will be getting into gaming in some way.
when they get Miyamoto or Iwata, then I'll be interested
These people are fleeing the "yellow light of death” on PS3 or "red ring of death' on 360. The consoles are so poorly made that broken PS3's seldomly fetch $50 on eBay.
Apple has a real opportunity to make a name in gaming as gamers know quality and appreciate being taken seriously.
that's well, ********, to be honest, RROD has pretty much been eliminated and YLOD wasn't particularly widespread....
Gelfin
Mar 27, 07:42 PM
I agree: There's a place for that kind of therapy. I even know people who felt conflicted about their sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the conflict caused them some of the severest emotional pain I could imagine.
The goal of any ethical psychological treatment is only to treat the conflict that causes pain. The patient is considered healthy when his thoughts and behaviors do not interfere with his ability to lead a fulfilling life, not when he changes his thoughts and behaviors to ones endorsed by the therapist. Anything else is abuse of the patient and psychological malpractice.
To tell someone who is in conflict over his sexual orientation that he must change it to be well is no different than telling an anorexic to lose more weight so she doesn't feel so fat. It is indulging the conflict to produce conforming behavior rather than treating the conflict to produce a healthy patient.
The goal of any ethical psychological treatment is only to treat the conflict that causes pain. The patient is considered healthy when his thoughts and behaviors do not interfere with his ability to lead a fulfilling life, not when he changes his thoughts and behaviors to ones endorsed by the therapist. Anything else is abuse of the patient and psychological malpractice.
To tell someone who is in conflict over his sexual orientation that he must change it to be well is no different than telling an anorexic to lose more weight so she doesn't feel so fat. It is indulging the conflict to produce conforming behavior rather than treating the conflict to produce a healthy patient.
dethmaShine
May 2, 04:15 PM
Its not a myth, we've interviewed hackers after conviction, they have no interest in pursuing Macs due to the numbers. To get a really good and useful bot net you'd need roughly 25% of the entire user base!!!!
these guys deal in tens of millions!
Such a load of crap that is.
'we've interviewed hackers after conviction'
:rolleyes:
these guys deal in tens of millions!
Such a load of crap that is.
'we've interviewed hackers after conviction'
:rolleyes:
carlgo
May 9, 12:31 PM
There is only one rational, consumer-friendly way to deal with this: allow carriers of our choice and offer plans that reflect the amount of use.
Right now it is like if you buy a BMW you can only use Shell gas and have to sign a contract to buy 200 gallons a month even even if you don't drive much. And, you have to pay for 200 gallons even if you do want to drive a lot, but the gas isn't even available!
Of course, you should have known that there are no Shell stations nearby and that others are driving around in perfectly good Fords and Kias that can fuel up at any of the other gas stations in town.
Maybe you really did believe the Shell employees who said a new station would be up soon. Of course, you do know that they might be tempted to sign you up to a contract that forced you to buy gas that wasn't actually available? Sort of a double-dip, eh?
And, maybe you didn't realize that many of the Shell stations that are open, in neighboring towns, only have one pump and that there are long lines of people waiting to fuel up their BMWs.
Shell says that they will build more stations, but mostly they just put new logos on the existing pumps and advertise more. Turns out that more pumps cost money and are opposed by many residents.
So, Shell simply charges more for the existing gas! And, they sell apps and BMWs and gas cards in the convenience store. Now they make so much money from all this that they actually give a large percentage back to BMW!
BMW is able to sell their cars for half the price because of this subsidy. Selling a very desirable and expensive car cheap and locking customers into a kick-back exclusive arrangement to regain the profit margin is genius. And, Shell can charge enough to cover the kickback and still make a huge profit. Pure genius.
The head of BMW, the improbably-named Herr Jobs is renowned all over the world for pulling off this marketing arrangement and greatly enriching both BMW and Shell. This business model will be studied for a hundred years.
In fact, it is so successful that other gas companies want to sell gas for BMWs as well. The problem is that it would cost a fortune to change their gas formulation to work in BMWs and they want BMW to instead change the fuel system to work with their gas.
Herr Jobs sees no reason to change the arrangement with Shell because he gets the financial breakdown every day and he first looks at the column showing the take from Shell.
As a kid, Herr Jobs loved Scrooge McDuck and hoped someday he would be diving into huge piles of money in the basement of his lavish new McMansion. Now he can do that!
It will all end. In time we will be able to buy the gas of our choice, from stations that are open in our area and which have fast, friendly service. We will actually be able to buy just the gas we need.
It is just hoped that this change will happen sooner than later because we consumers will certainly be better off when it does. Don't worry about Scrooge McDuck. He is a resilient old duck who will do quite fine and will remain the Head Duck on the pond as long as he wants.
Right now it is like if you buy a BMW you can only use Shell gas and have to sign a contract to buy 200 gallons a month even even if you don't drive much. And, you have to pay for 200 gallons even if you do want to drive a lot, but the gas isn't even available!
Of course, you should have known that there are no Shell stations nearby and that others are driving around in perfectly good Fords and Kias that can fuel up at any of the other gas stations in town.
Maybe you really did believe the Shell employees who said a new station would be up soon. Of course, you do know that they might be tempted to sign you up to a contract that forced you to buy gas that wasn't actually available? Sort of a double-dip, eh?
And, maybe you didn't realize that many of the Shell stations that are open, in neighboring towns, only have one pump and that there are long lines of people waiting to fuel up their BMWs.
Shell says that they will build more stations, but mostly they just put new logos on the existing pumps and advertise more. Turns out that more pumps cost money and are opposed by many residents.
So, Shell simply charges more for the existing gas! And, they sell apps and BMWs and gas cards in the convenience store. Now they make so much money from all this that they actually give a large percentage back to BMW!
BMW is able to sell their cars for half the price because of this subsidy. Selling a very desirable and expensive car cheap and locking customers into a kick-back exclusive arrangement to regain the profit margin is genius. And, Shell can charge enough to cover the kickback and still make a huge profit. Pure genius.
The head of BMW, the improbably-named Herr Jobs is renowned all over the world for pulling off this marketing arrangement and greatly enriching both BMW and Shell. This business model will be studied for a hundred years.
In fact, it is so successful that other gas companies want to sell gas for BMWs as well. The problem is that it would cost a fortune to change their gas formulation to work in BMWs and they want BMW to instead change the fuel system to work with their gas.
Herr Jobs sees no reason to change the arrangement with Shell because he gets the financial breakdown every day and he first looks at the column showing the take from Shell.
As a kid, Herr Jobs loved Scrooge McDuck and hoped someday he would be diving into huge piles of money in the basement of his lavish new McMansion. Now he can do that!
It will all end. In time we will be able to buy the gas of our choice, from stations that are open in our area and which have fast, friendly service. We will actually be able to buy just the gas we need.
It is just hoped that this change will happen sooner than later because we consumers will certainly be better off when it does. Don't worry about Scrooge McDuck. He is a resilient old duck who will do quite fine and will remain the Head Duck on the pond as long as he wants.
timswim78
Sep 12, 05:41 PM
Ughh, I really hope that Apple upates this product before releasing it for sale.
Come one Apple, what about the:
- TV recording
- DVD player
- Built In Storage (Hard Drive)
- Input for digital cable
Some analogies:
- It's like an wireless XBOX 360, except it doesn't play games or DVD's.
- It's like a networked DVD player, without the DVD player.
I'd rather spend $300 on almost ANY OTHER electronics product.
What a disappointment... I guess Apple is just trying to stave off the competition from the media capabilities of Windows Media Center and XBOX.
Come one Apple, what about the:
- TV recording
- DVD player
- Built In Storage (Hard Drive)
- Input for digital cable
Some analogies:
- It's like an wireless XBOX 360, except it doesn't play games or DVD's.
- It's like a networked DVD player, without the DVD player.
I'd rather spend $300 on almost ANY OTHER electronics product.
What a disappointment... I guess Apple is just trying to stave off the competition from the media capabilities of Windows Media Center and XBOX.
MacRumors
May 5, 10:15 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2010/05/05/atandt-customers-continuing-to-experience-excessive-dropped-calls/)
A new survey (http://www.investorplace.com/experts/jeff_reeves/att-dropped-calls-t-stock-verizon-vz-sprint-nextel-s-t-mobile-deutsche-telecom-dt.html) from ChangeWave Research reveals that the firm's business-focused survey base is seeing the highest percentage of dropped calls (4.5%) on AT&T, easily exceeding performance leader Verizon (1.5%), as well as Sprint (2.4%) and T-Mobile (2.8%).
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/05/05/111315-dropped_calls.gif
A new survey (http://www.investorplace.com/experts/jeff_reeves/att-dropped-calls-t-stock-verizon-vz-sprint-nextel-s-t-mobile-deutsche-telecom-dt.html) from ChangeWave Research reveals that the firm's business-focused survey base is seeing the highest percentage of dropped calls (4.5%) on AT&T, easily exceeding performance leader Verizon (1.5%), as well as Sprint (2.4%) and T-Mobile (2.8%).
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/05/05/111315-dropped_calls.gif
thisisahughes
Apr 8, 10:49 PM
My thoughts exactly. It almost has to be the next step for :apple:
I guess. I figure they will eventually, but I hope Apple releases an actual TV first.
I guess. I figure they will eventually, but I hope Apple releases an actual TV first.
0 Yorumlar