Oryan
Apr 18, 12:08 AM
I just noticed that the Google search results have changed layout with sponsored links at the top and bottom instead of on the right. Is it like this for everyone or just me? :confused:
RacerX
Mar 29, 01:26 PM
I've had Safari crash a LOT (probably the most crashed program next to Word and Mail.app)
Wow, I have only had Mail crash on me once (2004-07-16) since I started using it as my primary e-mail client back in September 2002.
Have you ever thought about trying to find out why it is crashing so much? Because I don't think that that is normal for it.
Wow, I have only had Mail crash on me once (2004-07-16) since I started using it as my primary e-mail client back in September 2002.
Have you ever thought about trying to find out why it is crashing so much? Because I don't think that that is normal for it.
narco
Mar 16, 06:55 PM
Worked for me earlier, now it's not. Someone joked about how Apple would sue them, apparently that wasn't a joke!
Fishes,
narco.
Fishes,
narco.
King Cobra
Sep 13, 08:50 PM
verbose, do you ever give newbies a break with typos these days? :rolleyes: :D
Great posts, guys. Well worth reading. But I think some of you need to take a closer look at WHY MHz/GHz doesn't matter as much.
First of all, the Px does not have the Velocity Engine, and OS 10.1/2 uses it. There is a dramatic performance over the G4 (and especially later G3s) with 10.2, as the operating system is now more effeciant. Also, OS X takes advantage of dual processors to a certain degree (maybe an extra 50 percent or so). Finally, when you take a look at the new PowerMacs, you are looking at 4MB of L3 Cache (w/ dual 1.25GHz). The Px don't seem to have that (if any). So, basically, that would bring a 64-bit system (in terms of the P4) to about 4 or 5GHz right there.
Now, take a look at the PC. Sure, the PC has incredible boot time, is great for playing games, and has a quick OS. However, the P4 lacks the necessity of an effecient L1 Cache. I do not see how 4Kb will provide enough memory for the complex operations tha Macs can handle. So, instead of a 4.7GHz, you're looking at, maybe, 3.x or 4GHz, assuming, with this new chip, the L1 cache has remained unchanged.
The only reasons Macs appear to be bogged down are because of the slower bus speeds (167MHz (Mac) compared to 333MHz or faster (PC) w/BOTH having DDR-RAM) and because not all applications support the Velocity Engine. It may not be THAT big of a difference, but it does bring the overall speed of the G4 down, when compared to a P4. Apple's apps sure work with OS X and the VE, but not a whole lot of other apps. In these cases (varies on how often, depending on what percentage of application usage involves the VE) the overall speed of the G4 (in relative terms to a P4) would decrease significantly, and that's one of the other reasons why were are getting hit badly.
I honestly don't see how a G5 (IF it comes out) would help, unless it was able to *fool* non-VE apps to thinking that data is going in 64-bit pathways, and the G5 could split that to 128-bit or even 256-bit pathways. Otherwise, the G4 will NOT be beneficial in the long run.
Great posts, guys. Well worth reading. But I think some of you need to take a closer look at WHY MHz/GHz doesn't matter as much.
First of all, the Px does not have the Velocity Engine, and OS 10.1/2 uses it. There is a dramatic performance over the G4 (and especially later G3s) with 10.2, as the operating system is now more effeciant. Also, OS X takes advantage of dual processors to a certain degree (maybe an extra 50 percent or so). Finally, when you take a look at the new PowerMacs, you are looking at 4MB of L3 Cache (w/ dual 1.25GHz). The Px don't seem to have that (if any). So, basically, that would bring a 64-bit system (in terms of the P4) to about 4 or 5GHz right there.
Now, take a look at the PC. Sure, the PC has incredible boot time, is great for playing games, and has a quick OS. However, the P4 lacks the necessity of an effecient L1 Cache. I do not see how 4Kb will provide enough memory for the complex operations tha Macs can handle. So, instead of a 4.7GHz, you're looking at, maybe, 3.x or 4GHz, assuming, with this new chip, the L1 cache has remained unchanged.
The only reasons Macs appear to be bogged down are because of the slower bus speeds (167MHz (Mac) compared to 333MHz or faster (PC) w/BOTH having DDR-RAM) and because not all applications support the Velocity Engine. It may not be THAT big of a difference, but it does bring the overall speed of the G4 down, when compared to a P4. Apple's apps sure work with OS X and the VE, but not a whole lot of other apps. In these cases (varies on how often, depending on what percentage of application usage involves the VE) the overall speed of the G4 (in relative terms to a P4) would decrease significantly, and that's one of the other reasons why were are getting hit badly.
I honestly don't see how a G5 (IF it comes out) would help, unless it was able to *fool* non-VE apps to thinking that data is going in 64-bit pathways, and the G5 could split that to 128-bit or even 256-bit pathways. Otherwise, the G4 will NOT be beneficial in the long run.
chubakka
Sep 12, 10:29 AM
I think more companies are less willing to be beholden to Microsoft technology. Dell and Sony dropping Office as the included suite of software is one example. With options like linux in the server arena, companies are much more willing to skip microsoft and its licensing and price gouging tactics.
For how long did the PC world put off integration of firewire?
Electronics companies saw the advantages and ignored the PC world's reluctance to use it. And now it's the standard. And now they're trying to foist USB 2.0 on us as an alternative.
Electronics companies see the advantages of a given technology and run with it... they don't wait for the approval of Microsoft, lack efficient plug and play features make them less likely to be a factor.
PC's by nature do not function as well as macs as a digital hub.
Although there is a much greater number of PCs in the world...
nothing about thier interaction with other devices is easy.
Phillips understands an important aspect of apple hardware and software...
IT JUST WORKS. That makes apple's open standard Rendezvous even more appealing.
For how long did the PC world put off integration of firewire?
Electronics companies saw the advantages and ignored the PC world's reluctance to use it. And now it's the standard. And now they're trying to foist USB 2.0 on us as an alternative.
Electronics companies see the advantages of a given technology and run with it... they don't wait for the approval of Microsoft, lack efficient plug and play features make them less likely to be a factor.
PC's by nature do not function as well as macs as a digital hub.
Although there is a much greater number of PCs in the world...
nothing about thier interaction with other devices is easy.
Phillips understands an important aspect of apple hardware and software...
IT JUST WORKS. That makes apple's open standard Rendezvous even more appealing.
Dagless
Mar 20, 12:31 PM
I really could care less about the 120GB HDD,
So you do care? :confused:
So you do care? :confused:
fbriggs
Jan 21, 10:05 PM
Check out my new iTunes visualizer Ultragroovalicious. It has psychedelic clean smooth OpenGL effects that react to your music. http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~fbriggs/ultragroov/
.png "Cute Funny Animal cute animals")
wmmk
Apr 20, 10:29 PM
I don't think they have any interest in a teenager programmer. Sorry. :(
Well, I can't say I blame them. ;)
Still, all I told apple was that I'm a student...
OK, even I admit, no way I will ever be hired by apple inthe next 10 years:mad:
Well, I can't say I blame them. ;)
Still, all I told apple was that I'm a student...
OK, even I admit, no way I will ever be hired by apple inthe next 10 years:mad:
TyleRomeo
Aug 27, 08:46 PM
do you think we will see at 256MB chips by november?
Rower_CPU
Sep 8, 11:15 PM
I'm here...what have you covered so far?:D
Marble
Apr 11, 11:50 PM
If only they had video in Quicktime! Also, the new Doctor Who hasn't had a Mac in it yet (several laptops, though). Not that this proves anything re: the thread.
JurgenWigg
Jun 29, 08:17 PM
Just wondering, how many people are doing the SETI@Home project instead of Folding@home? Maybe it's just me, but my PC blazes through SETI work whereas it took it a solid month to get through my first (and only) bit of Folding work.
Anyway, I just broke into the first page of the MacRumors team with the average daily credit, I'm quite proud :D Just wondering if there's still people keeping up with that project in here
Anyway, I just broke into the first page of the MacRumors team with the average daily credit, I'm quite proud :D Just wondering if there's still people keeping up with that project in here
kretzy
Dec 25, 06:49 AM
This is a great little widget. Now I don't have to keep checking my progress in terminal all the time. Nice work! ;)
Dreadnought
Feb 26, 12:28 PM
So, we will have to keep this forum alive, thus it is better to talk trash then have nothing to say ;) Anyway, I installed one folding app on one new C2D today. Too bad it's only on about 26 hours a week, but should still give me 100 points per week extra. So I will overtake you RugoseCone, 4NJA, Redeye, CanadaRam, Issmit02, Atszyman, and a few others that I always had some sort of battle with... I'LL BE BACK!
SamIchi
Mar 16, 10:18 AM
Just curious about a couple things between this comparison. First off let me say that I've never really played a GTA game, and probably won't. The whole gang, modern day (non-sci-fi), PS crap graphics (personal taste here) doesn't appeal to me.
So should these games even be compared? They're both free roaming, but doesn't CD invite a whole other dimension (the climbing and powerups, etc..)? What makes GTA series better (from what I've read)? What's Crackdown missing?
I guess I'm about half way through CD and it's one of the most immersive and addicting games I've ever played in a long time.
I know CD has its flaws but what puts GTA on a higher level? Just wanted some thoughts from people who have played both. No petty fanboyism. :D
So should these games even be compared? They're both free roaming, but doesn't CD invite a whole other dimension (the climbing and powerups, etc..)? What makes GTA series better (from what I've read)? What's Crackdown missing?
I guess I'm about half way through CD and it's one of the most immersive and addicting games I've ever played in a long time.
I know CD has its flaws but what puts GTA on a higher level? Just wanted some thoughts from people who have played both. No petty fanboyism. :D
MacHack
Oct 16, 06:22 PM
I think that the current processors only work well with a maximum of 2 per machine, the 970 can efficiently use up to 16. Also, I think it can perform 8 operations per clock cycle compare to 1-?? per cycle in current processors. The bus speed of 900 MHz is something like 6 times faster and needed! As far as the 64-bit goes, it is the future. I'm sure the servers could use it today, and I'd love to have it on the desktop next October. It seems like a great time to buy a new machine, or should I wait to get the 2+GHz and .9 micron chips... actually, i just ordered an eMac as a second machine to hold me over until next fall for the first 970.
oh yeah, what would I use it for that current machines can't do? Nothing, I just want the speed!
oh yeah, what would I use it for that current machines can't do? Nothing, I just want the speed!
WildCowboy
Apr 20, 11:38 PM
Yeah, you have no chance of working at Apple without going to college and getting a degree in something like computer science....even then, you're chances are very slim.
You could probably get a job there sweeping floors without a college degree...
You could probably get a job there sweeping floors without a college degree...
2nyRiggz
May 7, 02:08 PM
Oh well....better luck next year.
Bless
Bless
yellow
May 26, 01:37 PM
Well I for one think that Myspace is amazing. Its a great way to keep in touch with all my friends outside of school, and plus its something to do if your bored.
And you were born in 1992. :)
It definitely has more appeal to a younger audience. My 14 year old neice can't get enough of it.
And you were born in 1992. :)
It definitely has more appeal to a younger audience. My 14 year old neice can't get enough of it.
sparkleytone
Sep 3, 11:08 AM
i'd say go for the iBook and max out the RAM. I have an iBook 600 from late and there is really nothing I cant do with it. It may be slow at certain tasks, but that is very specialized and the iBook is generally considered an allaround computer.
You'd be at an advantage over me anyways, because you get the extra 100MHz, the extra 256k cache, and QuartzExtreme capabilities.
The iBook, as always, is a solid buy.
You'd be at an advantage over me anyways, because you get the extra 100MHz, the extra 256k cache, and QuartzExtreme capabilities.
The iBook, as always, is a solid buy.
Agilus
Mar 22, 11:56 AM
my head just exploded... :D
Haha! I was hoping for a reaction like that. :)
Haha! I was hoping for a reaction like that. :)
TyleRomeo
Sep 4, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by barkmonster
I agree with edvniow on that one.
It's not the size as such, it's the aspect ratio and dpi.
a 22" 16:9 ratio monitor with a 1600 x 1024 resolution is going to be far easier on the eyes than a 20.1" 12:9 ratio monitor at 1600 x 1200, every 21" CRT I've ever used at 1600 x 1200 has seemed too high res to be confortable to stare at all day and I've dropped it down to 1280 x 960 to be bearable. That's a trinitron screen with an 85hz refresh rate aswell, not some bargain basement monitor either.
I know LCDs are going to suit some people more than others but if anything I'd still go for a 22" apple LCD over the formac if the prices were a little more in my range at least.
yeah but a 21' CRT does not have 20.1 viewable. You need to go for a 22' CRT to have 20 inches in screen room.
also if the 17' iMac can be 1440 by 900 then 1600 by 1200 wont kill the formacs vision with three extra inches.
tyler
I agree with edvniow on that one.
It's not the size as such, it's the aspect ratio and dpi.
a 22" 16:9 ratio monitor with a 1600 x 1024 resolution is going to be far easier on the eyes than a 20.1" 12:9 ratio monitor at 1600 x 1200, every 21" CRT I've ever used at 1600 x 1200 has seemed too high res to be confortable to stare at all day and I've dropped it down to 1280 x 960 to be bearable. That's a trinitron screen with an 85hz refresh rate aswell, not some bargain basement monitor either.
I know LCDs are going to suit some people more than others but if anything I'd still go for a 22" apple LCD over the formac if the prices were a little more in my range at least.
yeah but a 21' CRT does not have 20.1 viewable. You need to go for a 22' CRT to have 20 inches in screen room.
also if the 17' iMac can be 1440 by 900 then 1600 by 1200 wont kill the formacs vision with three extra inches.
tyler
groovebuster
Sep 26, 03:04 AM
Originally posted by bidge
I don't know why it's so bad having the cables at the back, how often do you need to plug/unplug the cables from your computer. Really.
That's maybe true for HDs, CD-Burners and other peripherals that are in most cases constantly connected to your machine, but it is always annoying to connect something like a DV-Camera or other equipment to it just a few minutes for transfers. For that it would be pretty smart to have at least one Firewire port on the front panel to give easy access. My PMs are on tables facing the wall and there is already a huge cable chaos behind that can't be really fixed. The only way to get to the ports is to move the computer and to turn it a little bit. Something that can be very annoying with a dozen cables connected already. And to leave the cable connected (that's what I am doing at the moment) to avoid that computer moving all the time, can't be the ultimate solution for that problem. To have a cable on the desk without any function 95% of the time is ugly and to make sure that it is not sliding behind the desk is also kinda silly...
It's not really that annoying at all. Plus do you really want to have your firewire drives plugged in with a cable going to the front. I know you'd also have back ports, but I'd like to know why you really need/want them. True the cube was slightly annoying having them underneath.
Who was talking about ALL the firewire ports? One in the front, two in the back. That would be perfect. A colleague is coming with his camera or HD, you plug it, do the transfer, you unplug it. That would be really awesome. No unneeded cables on the desk, no computer moving...
groovebuster
I don't know why it's so bad having the cables at the back, how often do you need to plug/unplug the cables from your computer. Really.
That's maybe true for HDs, CD-Burners and other peripherals that are in most cases constantly connected to your machine, but it is always annoying to connect something like a DV-Camera or other equipment to it just a few minutes for transfers. For that it would be pretty smart to have at least one Firewire port on the front panel to give easy access. My PMs are on tables facing the wall and there is already a huge cable chaos behind that can't be really fixed. The only way to get to the ports is to move the computer and to turn it a little bit. Something that can be very annoying with a dozen cables connected already. And to leave the cable connected (that's what I am doing at the moment) to avoid that computer moving all the time, can't be the ultimate solution for that problem. To have a cable on the desk without any function 95% of the time is ugly and to make sure that it is not sliding behind the desk is also kinda silly...
It's not really that annoying at all. Plus do you really want to have your firewire drives plugged in with a cable going to the front. I know you'd also have back ports, but I'd like to know why you really need/want them. True the cube was slightly annoying having them underneath.
Who was talking about ALL the firewire ports? One in the front, two in the back. That would be perfect. A colleague is coming with his camera or HD, you plug it, do the transfer, you unplug it. That would be really awesome. No unneeded cables on the desk, no computer moving...
groovebuster
jettredmont
Oct 28, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by cosmicsoftceo
PhotoShop, Quark, Fireworks, Dreamweaver, and 90% of applications need to be cross-platform. There is no good Objective C compiler for Win32, meaning developers for cross-platform applications will never write in Cocoa because it would require them to have two separate versions of their program, or constantly be converting it.
Well, I do write cross-platform applications. And I use Cocoa. No, Obj C doesn't go "deep" into the core of the application, but Obj C does a fantastic job on the UI. That is where Cocoa lies.
Any application which integrates UI code deep into its code base, be that UI code Carbon or Cocoa or Win32, will not be cross platform without great and expensive effort. I strongly doubt that Photoshop has Carbon any more than skin deep. Transitioning that layer to Cocoa would make Photoshop no less cross-platform than it already is!
Obj C modules link seamlessly to C/C++ modules. Obj C++ (new in Jaguar) allows you to put C++ right into your Obj C code modules, making integration even easier (C++ apps used to have to expose a C API to the UI layer ... now the UI layer can talk C++ instead ...)
If Apple made Project Builder cross platform for Win32, then we'd see some real action in Cocoa (since it is easier than Carbon or other C compilers).
Well, ProjectBuilderWO, the WebObjects development environment (and an extension on the normal Project Builder) runs on Windows as well as OS X. I believe it also includes an Obj C compiler. The problem is that Cocoa itself is not ported to Win32 as far as I know (and the performance hit of using such a translation layer would likely be too great to seriously consider it anyways).
Second, Carbon is no longer insuperior to Cocoa. The only real insuperiority in OS X was the lack of toolbars, drawers, and other specific features. The fact that Carbon apps look crappy is the fault of the developer. And now in 10.2, Carbon apps have access to Services, toolbars, sheets, drawers, etc. It's just a matter of slogging through all the Carbon legacy code and modifying it to look better, work better, etc. Once Carbon developers rewrite the code for their interfaces, you'll barely be able to tell the difference, assuming they follow the guidelines.
Well, that's assuming that said developers are getting something out of their Carbon code. When was the last Carbon update? I don't remember seeing one recently. If you don't need OS 9 backwards compatibility, Cocoa is a MUCH better API than the Carbon kludge!
PhotoShop, Quark, Fireworks, Dreamweaver, and 90% of applications need to be cross-platform. There is no good Objective C compiler for Win32, meaning developers for cross-platform applications will never write in Cocoa because it would require them to have two separate versions of their program, or constantly be converting it.
Well, I do write cross-platform applications. And I use Cocoa. No, Obj C doesn't go "deep" into the core of the application, but Obj C does a fantastic job on the UI. That is where Cocoa lies.
Any application which integrates UI code deep into its code base, be that UI code Carbon or Cocoa or Win32, will not be cross platform without great and expensive effort. I strongly doubt that Photoshop has Carbon any more than skin deep. Transitioning that layer to Cocoa would make Photoshop no less cross-platform than it already is!
Obj C modules link seamlessly to C/C++ modules. Obj C++ (new in Jaguar) allows you to put C++ right into your Obj C code modules, making integration even easier (C++ apps used to have to expose a C API to the UI layer ... now the UI layer can talk C++ instead ...)
If Apple made Project Builder cross platform for Win32, then we'd see some real action in Cocoa (since it is easier than Carbon or other C compilers).
Well, ProjectBuilderWO, the WebObjects development environment (and an extension on the normal Project Builder) runs on Windows as well as OS X. I believe it also includes an Obj C compiler. The problem is that Cocoa itself is not ported to Win32 as far as I know (and the performance hit of using such a translation layer would likely be too great to seriously consider it anyways).
Second, Carbon is no longer insuperior to Cocoa. The only real insuperiority in OS X was the lack of toolbars, drawers, and other specific features. The fact that Carbon apps look crappy is the fault of the developer. And now in 10.2, Carbon apps have access to Services, toolbars, sheets, drawers, etc. It's just a matter of slogging through all the Carbon legacy code and modifying it to look better, work better, etc. Once Carbon developers rewrite the code for their interfaces, you'll barely be able to tell the difference, assuming they follow the guidelines.
Well, that's assuming that said developers are getting something out of their Carbon code. When was the last Carbon update? I don't remember seeing one recently. If you don't need OS 9 backwards compatibility, Cocoa is a MUCH better API than the Carbon kludge!
No comments:
Post a Comment