MacBoobsPro
Aug 7, 04:34 AM
If done the right way I dont see how it could be a problem. For one, the user has to explicitly add the 3rd party product, apple could also act as a intermediary or something, the update will only become available through software update once apple has tested it (can download it youself when released), and even though the update comes from the 3rd parties webserver the hash is stored on apples servers and the update HAS to be verified and compared to the hash.
edit: spelling
Thats the thing. I cant see Apple going through all that for little or no benefit for themselves.
edit: spelling
Thats the thing. I cant see Apple going through all that for little or no benefit for themselves.
BenRoethig
Aug 29, 04:49 PM
Exactly!!!
I media center like this would sell like crazy... small, simple and elegant. Just imagine how many switchers you would get at the same time.
I don't know about switchers, but it should be a success in the home entertainment center/ media PC market.
I media center like this would sell like crazy... small, simple and elegant. Just imagine how many switchers you would get at the same time.
I don't know about switchers, but it should be a success in the home entertainment center/ media PC market.
aliensporebomb
Apr 21, 01:34 PM
Despite the freaked brigade and people wanting to turn this into a huge political argument I think this guy at Reddit had the best thing to say about this:
I went to WWDC last year where the new Core Location system was discussed in great detail. If you went as well, or have the videos, look at the video for session 115, "Using Core Location in iOS". Skip to around 13:45 for the discussion of "Course Cell Positioning" where they discuss the cache in detail.
The purpose of this is offline GPS. Normally, each cell tower has an identifier and Core Location sends that identifier to Apple and asks for the latitude and longitude for that tower. This requires a data connection, and the use of data. Since cell towers don't move, however, it's inefficient to keep going back to Apple for that information so they cache it. Now if a tower appears with the same ID as the cache, tada! you have a cache hit and a faster fix with no data use. Which also means you can get a "course location" (as in rough) if you are near known towers and don't have a data connection.
That's all this is. It's a cache of identifiers (cell and wifi), locations, and their age (it's a cache, after all). Someone made the decision to never clean it out so they would have more and more information about those GPS "assists" (you know, A-GPS) and so they'd use less and less power and data over time for the places you frequent. It's a great idea, technically.
Practically, yes, you can track location over time. The file is readable only by root and you're free to encrypt your backups for now. I'm sure Apple will either encrypt the file or truncate the data in a future update (I would prefer encryption as I think it's technically sound, but I know many will disagree). I'm also sure someone is considering a toggle for the feature or a button to clear the database. Both are great ideas.
This isn't nefarious, this isn't being sent anywhere, and this isn't as bad as everyone is making it. This is a real feature with a major oversight. That's it.
Yes they probably need to encrypt this to keep thieves and insane people from taking it from your phone but it's nothing that other cellular providers aren't doing with their phones, you just can't see it necessarily.
I went to WWDC last year where the new Core Location system was discussed in great detail. If you went as well, or have the videos, look at the video for session 115, "Using Core Location in iOS". Skip to around 13:45 for the discussion of "Course Cell Positioning" where they discuss the cache in detail.
The purpose of this is offline GPS. Normally, each cell tower has an identifier and Core Location sends that identifier to Apple and asks for the latitude and longitude for that tower. This requires a data connection, and the use of data. Since cell towers don't move, however, it's inefficient to keep going back to Apple for that information so they cache it. Now if a tower appears with the same ID as the cache, tada! you have a cache hit and a faster fix with no data use. Which also means you can get a "course location" (as in rough) if you are near known towers and don't have a data connection.
That's all this is. It's a cache of identifiers (cell and wifi), locations, and their age (it's a cache, after all). Someone made the decision to never clean it out so they would have more and more information about those GPS "assists" (you know, A-GPS) and so they'd use less and less power and data over time for the places you frequent. It's a great idea, technically.
Practically, yes, you can track location over time. The file is readable only by root and you're free to encrypt your backups for now. I'm sure Apple will either encrypt the file or truncate the data in a future update (I would prefer encryption as I think it's technically sound, but I know many will disagree). I'm also sure someone is considering a toggle for the feature or a button to clear the database. Both are great ideas.
This isn't nefarious, this isn't being sent anywhere, and this isn't as bad as everyone is making it. This is a real feature with a major oversight. That's it.
Yes they probably need to encrypt this to keep thieves and insane people from taking it from your phone but it's nothing that other cellular providers aren't doing with their phones, you just can't see it necessarily.
Frobozz
Mar 25, 09:40 AM
Nop... consider.
2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there. However, no CPU consumes the rated, so it's give or take ~260W.
Each 5770 is ~108W, given two, that's ~216 W. Right off the bat we have ~476 W being consumed. Not bad; however let's look at the side where its not a dual 5770 setup.
The PSU on the Mac Pro is rated for 980 W of power, but for simplicity sake let's say 1 kW. Now, factor in the Super drive, Ethernet, Airport, at least 1 HDD and peripheral docks/cards you are looking at ~100 W. Take into account a 20 W per 1GB of memory (assume 6GB) and you've got ~120 W more. So far ~ 220 W more.
Now we have ~480 W [~260W + ~220W]consumption leaving only ~520 W left for a GPU. Currently, the HD 6970 requires 2x 8-pin connectors to provide 150 W per pin. That's 300W right off. So we are left with ~220 W in the system. Now, factor in that PCIe slot power draw at 75 W and we've got a ~145 W left over. ~145 W is cutting it too close and something will yield (yes I do realize 145 W is a lot more, but read on). Now, the sad part, we were assuming 1kW PSU which is not the case; it's 980 W meaning there will be less power, ~125 W. Now, also take into consideration no PSU is 100% efficient, hence there will be greater power outlet draw and the PSU will be operating at high voltage/amps and its life span will decrease dramatically over very high usage.
In other words the current PSU may come up short. Add to that the fact that all current shipping and past model Mac Pros don't have extra dual 8-pin connectors. They have dual 6-pins. There is an adapter to make a 6-pin into an 8-pin, but it is risky at best, big no-no.
So as you can see an HD 6970 would be barely supported on current models. Future models? Perhaps yes assuming Apple bumps to 1.1kW or 1.2kW PSU.
Take into account this was calculated assuming 6GB of memory and 1 HDD, anymore RAM (20 W/1GB) or HDDs (10W/disc) and the consumption will go up. Also, assuming nothing is hooked up to peripheral ports; like a small external drive that draws 5-10 W.
I have an 850 watt PSU in my gaming rig with a 4870x2 and custom coolers all around on the CPU, GPU, and case. I think your calculations are pretty close to correct if you wanted to run everything in the case at once. But that's not typical to run everything at max all at once. I suppose Apple might not want to get in the business of telling people it's okay to buy this honking huge GPU as long as you're not running a lot of extra hard drives and extra PCI-E cards.
But, for people looking to simply drop in a fast GPU and not have a lot of extra bells and whistles (read: a gaming rig), they would be fine with 850 watts or so, even with a 6970. Or at least damn close.
The tricky part with GPU's is that the high end units commonly exceed rated specifications at max load, so these calculations are tricky. And your point about running too close to your max is also a good one. It's fair to say that when you add up all your max dissipation, add 20% or so, and that's the wattage your PSU needs.
2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there. However, no CPU consumes the rated, so it's give or take ~260W.
Each 5770 is ~108W, given two, that's ~216 W. Right off the bat we have ~476 W being consumed. Not bad; however let's look at the side where its not a dual 5770 setup.
The PSU on the Mac Pro is rated for 980 W of power, but for simplicity sake let's say 1 kW. Now, factor in the Super drive, Ethernet, Airport, at least 1 HDD and peripheral docks/cards you are looking at ~100 W. Take into account a 20 W per 1GB of memory (assume 6GB) and you've got ~120 W more. So far ~ 220 W more.
Now we have ~480 W [~260W + ~220W]consumption leaving only ~520 W left for a GPU. Currently, the HD 6970 requires 2x 8-pin connectors to provide 150 W per pin. That's 300W right off. So we are left with ~220 W in the system. Now, factor in that PCIe slot power draw at 75 W and we've got a ~145 W left over. ~145 W is cutting it too close and something will yield (yes I do realize 145 W is a lot more, but read on). Now, the sad part, we were assuming 1kW PSU which is not the case; it's 980 W meaning there will be less power, ~125 W. Now, also take into consideration no PSU is 100% efficient, hence there will be greater power outlet draw and the PSU will be operating at high voltage/amps and its life span will decrease dramatically over very high usage.
In other words the current PSU may come up short. Add to that the fact that all current shipping and past model Mac Pros don't have extra dual 8-pin connectors. They have dual 6-pins. There is an adapter to make a 6-pin into an 8-pin, but it is risky at best, big no-no.
So as you can see an HD 6970 would be barely supported on current models. Future models? Perhaps yes assuming Apple bumps to 1.1kW or 1.2kW PSU.
Take into account this was calculated assuming 6GB of memory and 1 HDD, anymore RAM (20 W/1GB) or HDDs (10W/disc) and the consumption will go up. Also, assuming nothing is hooked up to peripheral ports; like a small external drive that draws 5-10 W.
I have an 850 watt PSU in my gaming rig with a 4870x2 and custom coolers all around on the CPU, GPU, and case. I think your calculations are pretty close to correct if you wanted to run everything in the case at once. But that's not typical to run everything at max all at once. I suppose Apple might not want to get in the business of telling people it's okay to buy this honking huge GPU as long as you're not running a lot of extra hard drives and extra PCI-E cards.
But, for people looking to simply drop in a fast GPU and not have a lot of extra bells and whistles (read: a gaming rig), they would be fine with 850 watts or so, even with a 6970. Or at least damn close.
The tricky part with GPU's is that the high end units commonly exceed rated specifications at max load, so these calculations are tricky. And your point about running too close to your max is also a good one. It's fair to say that when you add up all your max dissipation, add 20% or so, and that's the wattage your PSU needs.
spine
Nov 29, 01:56 PM
I posted this a while ago - but I think Jobs was hinting that apple wants to be everywhere. iPod is a lifestyle product, as is the iTv.
Apple has proven that they have a true understanding of the user experience, and can spread that halo wherever a user may go. Hence the iPod's success, and perhaps the iTv and phone future success.
Bottom line, wherever there is media, apple wants to be there, showing everyone how to do it the best way.
Apple has proven that they have a true understanding of the user experience, and can spread that halo wherever a user may go. Hence the iPod's success, and perhaps the iTv and phone future success.
Bottom line, wherever there is media, apple wants to be there, showing everyone how to do it the best way.
themadchemist
May 2, 05:16 PM
It seems like a couple of males trying to strut their feathers to impress mates...But I don't see any mates. I'm confused.
Let's get back on topic, if there still is a topic. As for me, I think Apple could make some changes but that it is in much better shape than it was, say, eight years ago.
Let's get back on topic, if there still is a topic. As for me, I think Apple could make some changes but that it is in much better shape than it was, say, eight years ago.
DaveTheGrey
Nov 28, 04:32 PM
...here is a link (http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/11631/) to the CNN review of the zune. I wouldn't be surprised if they were payed by Apple given how it ends.
thanks for this
what a laugh
poor M$
thanks for this
what a laugh
poor M$
zeppiecr
Sep 6, 07:39 AM
Pricing Now Starts at Just $999; New 24-inch Model Added
megan fox makeup artist. megan
megan fox makeup artist.
makeup – Megan Fox eye and
megan fox actress and model
Re: Megan Fox#39;s Make-Up Looks
Black amp; Orange smokey eye
megan fox thumbs and toes.
Megan Fox make-up by
Tyra Banks, and Megan Fox.
megan fox makeup how to. megan
Megan Fox Makeup. Megan Fox
ValSalva
Jun 23, 12:08 PM
iOS on a real Mac seems about as pointless as Microsoft Bob on Windows.
:D I like your comparison.
:D I like your comparison.
ciTiger
May 2, 06:06 PM
That's a very nice feature! Too bad it won't work for apps not from the app store...
iStudentUK
Mar 22, 01:46 PM
The problem is there are some people that cannot see the evidence in front of them.
You can have an intelligent debate with someone about some contentious issue such as abortion, animal experiments, death penalty etc because there are intelligent arguments to argue both sides. People obviously have different opinions, but I can recognise the merits of the arguments made by those who disagree with me.
This, however, it not one of those topics. Things like homosexuality as a choice, creationism, astrology are not unknowns. There is evidence- scientists don't seriously research astrology because the evidence is in! Some people will still believe in these things through faith or whatever else. [Not that I understand it- if God himself came down now and told me he was real and I should be anti-gay rights I'd just tell him to shove it!]
What we can say is that homosexuals do seem to be getting more and more rights, which is great. I was so happy to see civil partnerships introduced here a few years ago, and I hope it will be 're-branded' as marriage eventually. We don't need everyone to agree to make progress, and there will always be people behind the times, but with any luck anti-homosxual views will become more and more unacceptable in civilised society.
You can have an intelligent debate with someone about some contentious issue such as abortion, animal experiments, death penalty etc because there are intelligent arguments to argue both sides. People obviously have different opinions, but I can recognise the merits of the arguments made by those who disagree with me.
This, however, it not one of those topics. Things like homosexuality as a choice, creationism, astrology are not unknowns. There is evidence- scientists don't seriously research astrology because the evidence is in! Some people will still believe in these things through faith or whatever else. [Not that I understand it- if God himself came down now and told me he was real and I should be anti-gay rights I'd just tell him to shove it!]
What we can say is that homosexuals do seem to be getting more and more rights, which is great. I was so happy to see civil partnerships introduced here a few years ago, and I hope it will be 're-branded' as marriage eventually. We don't need everyone to agree to make progress, and there will always be people behind the times, but with any luck anti-homosxual views will become more and more unacceptable in civilised society.
Surf and Turf
Oct 24, 06:23 AM
dun get excited it is just routine maintanace. The new mbk will will be released late november
sorry
sorry
PowerFullMac
Jan 12, 12:22 PM
I agree, I think it will be called the "AirBook".
And you feel so strongly about that you put it in your signature... :D
And you feel so strongly about that you put it in your signature... :D
qualleyiv
Nov 15, 10:30 AM
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
OK, I'm hardly a programmer (PHP doesn't really count) but that's the exact same description that I've heard applied to the description of what it takes to vectorize a program (i.e. make it Alti-Vec optimized) [that and the process of making loops that can be unrolled]. So I've got to ask, is there some difference between those two concepts? If not, it sure seems like we would have a lot more multi-core enabled apps out there already...
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
OK, I'm hardly a programmer (PHP doesn't really count) but that's the exact same description that I've heard applied to the description of what it takes to vectorize a program (i.e. make it Alti-Vec optimized) [that and the process of making loops that can be unrolled]. So I've got to ask, is there some difference between those two concepts? If not, it sure seems like we would have a lot more multi-core enabled apps out there already...
poppe
Jul 14, 11:33 AM
UMM... of course you should base desicions on the potential of a system, of course within a timeframe. I mean the potential of my Powerbook isn't nearly as great as a MacBook Pro, so that why I wouldn't buy a Powerbook right now ;) . Its not based on cost, cause I can get a powerbook at much less, but just the fact that while the MacBook is only faster for universal apps, so really its mostly slower due to rosetta, and it has no other upgrades..... well there seems to be little advantage to pick it .... OHH WAIT it has the potential to be much faster in the future.... I forgot about that...
Right. If he is going to base a decision on potential and storage then Blue Ray and HD-DVD is not really the way to go... I find it funny everyone here is oozing for Blue Ray yet Holographic has more potential...
Right. If he is going to base a decision on potential and storage then Blue Ray and HD-DVD is not really the way to go... I find it funny everyone here is oozing for Blue Ray yet Holographic has more potential...
hollerz
Feb 27, 02:21 AM
I recall paying the same price for mine as the Mac Pro currently costs. Sheesh! Stupid me. I should've put that money into Apple stock! If I had put the $7k I blew on my Dual 800/22" into Apple shares I could afford a Ferrari right now :(
Being 14 and stupid FTW?
Haha! Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I hate to think how much I've needlessly spent on Apple over the years. Thankfully I think I'm (more or less) past that phase!
Being 14 and stupid FTW?
Haha! Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I hate to think how much I've needlessly spent on Apple over the years. Thankfully I think I'm (more or less) past that phase!
doctor pangloss
Oct 23, 08:18 PM
I just got the new battery for my 12" PB.
I'm waiting for a 12" MBP.
Until then I'm happy saving my money.;)
Maybe I'l buy a GPS for my motorcycle or go fishing. Probably both!
I'm waiting for a 12" MBP.
Until then I'm happy saving my money.;)
Maybe I'l buy a GPS for my motorcycle or go fishing. Probably both!
bartzilla
May 3, 07:27 AM
I
I really wonder what the reasoning behind all this negativity is...
Well I can tell you why I'm dubious - we know that iOS has shown that full computer paradigms don't translate well to the tablet (e.g. iOS compared to the 'full Windows' tablet experience). I'm thinking that the description of this new feature sounds very clumsy, and it may illustrate that the reverse of my first statement is true: tablet interface conventions may not translate well to a 'normal' computer environment.
I really wonder what the reasoning behind all this negativity is...
Well I can tell you why I'm dubious - we know that iOS has shown that full computer paradigms don't translate well to the tablet (e.g. iOS compared to the 'full Windows' tablet experience). I'm thinking that the description of this new feature sounds very clumsy, and it may illustrate that the reverse of my first statement is true: tablet interface conventions may not translate well to a 'normal' computer environment.
aiqw9182
Apr 12, 09:00 PM
The basic process of "This is my source, this is my output" has been around as long as film editing. The overall look of video editing, be it tape to tape, or the current (FC7) editing layout is more or less the same. In points, out points, etc.
Anyway, you know what. Fine. You can have your new iMovie. All yours. I sure as hell can't use it. The trailers in '11 were cute, but beyond that, it's not nearly good enough for polished output. If you want am, there's your option.
All I'm asking is they leave final cut PRO to the pros who know how to use it and like the interface. I want under the hood tweaks to make it faster. Cocoa?
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/10/22/timeline-tweak-returns-imovie-11-to-old-school/
Anyway, you know what. Fine. You can have your new iMovie. All yours. I sure as hell can't use it. The trailers in '11 were cute, but beyond that, it's not nearly good enough for polished output. If you want am, there's your option.
All I'm asking is they leave final cut PRO to the pros who know how to use it and like the interface. I want under the hood tweaks to make it faster. Cocoa?
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/10/22/timeline-tweak-returns-imovie-11-to-old-school/
Multimedia
Aug 25, 05:37 PM
Bingo! Bring on the iMac Ultra with Conroe, 23" display and a powerful GPU. Now that would be an immediate purchase for me.Span that puppy with a second 23" Apple or 24" Dell Display and you have a fairly ultimate desktop. Better yet have Apple make the DVI Port Dual so you can span to a 30" Screen. Now that would be truly the ultimate iMac - Until they offer a 30" iMac. :p
rdowns
Mar 19, 05:50 PM
Haven't you heard?
Cold fusion is being suppressed, for now, just like the 100 mpg carburettor was. :)
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Get your attributions straight old man. I didn't say that.
Cold fusion is being suppressed, for now, just like the 100 mpg carburettor was. :)
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Get your attributions straight old man. I didn't say that.
KnightWRX
Apr 10, 06:52 PM
And two-seaters?? :eek: Well, let's not go there.
Hey, my Street Bob is a 2 seater. :mad:
Hey, my Street Bob is a 2 seater. :mad:
Unggoy Murderer
Apr 26, 01:17 PM
I think Apple deserves to trademark the word App or App Store. When I see App Store, I think Apple. Companies who effectively steal Apples hard work should be made to change their name because I believe Apple did make mainstream use of the word, I had never heard anyone say App before the App store.
amacgenius
Jan 1, 05:15 PM
The only two I'm betting on are iLife '07 and iTV, because those seem most feasible at this point.
A new Mac Pro and another more in depth Leopard preview would be nice, but I don't think that's in the Pipeline (kudos to those who get the joke).
A new Mac Pro and another more in depth Leopard preview would be nice, but I don't think that's in the Pipeline (kudos to those who get the joke).
No comments:
Post a Comment