Vegasman
Apr 27, 08:43 AM
I think is quite conceivable that keeping those logs forever, not encrypting them, maintaining them despite an opt out, and not removing the timestamps was done in the spirit of: "Let's keep the data, maybe they will be useful at some point, and why bother do encrypt them, that is just some extra lines of code to write."
And it is this spirit which is somehow worrying.
This is the most likely explanation for me (too).
And it is this spirit which is somehow worrying.
This is the most likely explanation for me (too).
faroZ06
Apr 27, 08:46 AM
Did you read ANY of the news articles.
With location services turned off, this data was still be collected. And Apple says this was a "bug"
So you're wrong.
Ok then show me where it says that turning location services off will not stop the tracking. I've scanned the articles and did not find anything that said that. If it does still track when you turn it off, I'd like to know.
With location services turned off, this data was still be collected. And Apple says this was a "bug"
So you're wrong.
Ok then show me where it says that turning location services off will not stop the tracking. I've scanned the articles and did not find anything that said that. If it does still track when you turn it off, I'd like to know.
LethalWolfe
Apr 12, 11:22 AM
So the presentation should be in about 10 hours?
Has any one heard of live coverage? A livestream will probably be too much to ask, but maybe one of the tech blogs is doing a text/photo update.
There have been live streams in the past but last I heard Apple killed it for this meeting.
Lethal
Has any one heard of live coverage? A livestream will probably be too much to ask, but maybe one of the tech blogs is doing a text/photo update.
There have been live streams in the past but last I heard Apple killed it for this meeting.
Lethal
technicolor
Sep 19, 08:49 PM
DailyTech (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4217) has a mention of the Core 2 Quadro processors.
Pricing mentioned was a little lower than I expected, but it's processors in the Conroe line rather than the Xeon. Having said that, the 3GHz Xeon is slightly cheaper than the 2.93GHz Conroe.
As expected, the highest rated speed mentioned is 2.67Ghz. This intel crap updates far too frequently...ugh
:mad:
Pricing mentioned was a little lower than I expected, but it's processors in the Conroe line rather than the Xeon. Having said that, the 3GHz Xeon is slightly cheaper than the 2.93GHz Conroe.
As expected, the highest rated speed mentioned is 2.67Ghz. This intel crap updates far too frequently...ugh
:mad:
Tejasfilm
Sep 19, 09:26 AM
This being my first Mac I'd like to get the best possible machine possible. It's been a few years since I used a Mac, used them in college. I've gone full circle with PC's and hate the fact that I've lost countless data over the years and am ready for a great machine. My old Prof is thrilled at my new purchase, MBP 17", so I too have the September 26th delivery date. Crossing fingers for the Merom, I know I'd use the 64 bit processing for video editing and photo editing.
silentnite
Apr 25, 01:54 PM
I'm sure apple is not the only one doing it besides (Android) once they dig a little deeper will see.
guzhogi
Jul 20, 10:07 AM
First of all, you assume that it is possible to make "one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores". I don't think it is possible to do this (at least not with the x86 architecture using today's technology.)
But assuming such a chip exists, the answer depends on what kind of efficiency you're thinking of.
If you mean computational efficiency (meaning the most useful processing per clock-tick), then a single big core will do better. This is because single-threaded apps will be able to use the full power (whereas multiple threads are needed to take advantagte of multiple cores.) Also, the operating system can get rid of the overhead that is needed to keep software running on the multiple cores from stepping on each other.
If you mean energy efficiency (amount of processing per watt of electricity consumed), then it could go either way, depending on how the chips are made. But given today's manufacturing processes and the non-linear power curve that we see as clock speeds are increased, the multiple-core solution will almost definitely use less power.
I remember hearing about how it is possible to make multiple cores act like one (Idon't remember where I heard this). Anyways, whether 8 cores acting separately or together like 1 big processor has an advantage depends on the program you use. If the program is multi-threaded, then the cores acting separately might have the advantage while single threaded apps will have an advantage if the cores are acting like one. However, many apps today won't see that much improvement either way (like a simple calculator, or solitare and word processing).
But assuming such a chip exists, the answer depends on what kind of efficiency you're thinking of.
If you mean computational efficiency (meaning the most useful processing per clock-tick), then a single big core will do better. This is because single-threaded apps will be able to use the full power (whereas multiple threads are needed to take advantagte of multiple cores.) Also, the operating system can get rid of the overhead that is needed to keep software running on the multiple cores from stepping on each other.
If you mean energy efficiency (amount of processing per watt of electricity consumed), then it could go either way, depending on how the chips are made. But given today's manufacturing processes and the non-linear power curve that we see as clock speeds are increased, the multiple-core solution will almost definitely use less power.
I remember hearing about how it is possible to make multiple cores act like one (Idon't remember where I heard this). Anyways, whether 8 cores acting separately or together like 1 big processor has an advantage depends on the program you use. If the program is multi-threaded, then the cores acting separately might have the advantage while single threaded apps will have an advantage if the cores are acting like one. However, many apps today won't see that much improvement either way (like a simple calculator, or solitare and word processing).
![american flag shirts for women. [In Stock] american flag](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uErp4qIowZ6Oyk_osP-dyIggeVa0edI6F14bRnQsYr0F_-B5PQfqGkqgF3eNjKtKEkpplEZZIN3s2zVCiLMGROgsCDtkDoc4G3r8EIE8-z4SDppU6DKUgDONM3SFFXRY7mwZdnrjj-E_ZN=s0-d "[In Stock] american flag")
shamino
Jul 20, 09:58 AM
No I think you are confused. :) I meant "Is having more cores, lets say 8, more efficient than one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores?"
First of all, you assume that it is possible to make "one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores". I don't think it is possible to do this (at least not with the x86 architecture using today's technology.)
But assuming such a chip exists, the answer depends on what kind of efficiency you're thinking of.
If you mean computational efficiency (meaning the most useful processing per clock-tick), then a single big core will do better. This is because single-threaded apps will be able to use the full power (whereas multiple threads are needed to take advantagte of multiple cores.) Also, the operating system can get rid of the overhead that is needed to keep software running on the multiple cores from stepping on each other.
If you mean energy efficiency (amount of processing per watt of electricity consumed), then it could go either way, depending on how the chips are made. But given today's manufacturing processes and the non-linear power curve that we see as clock speeds are increased, the multiple-core solution will almost definitely use less power.
First of all, you assume that it is possible to make "one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores". I don't think it is possible to do this (at least not with the x86 architecture using today's technology.)
But assuming such a chip exists, the answer depends on what kind of efficiency you're thinking of.
If you mean computational efficiency (meaning the most useful processing per clock-tick), then a single big core will do better. This is because single-threaded apps will be able to use the full power (whereas multiple threads are needed to take advantagte of multiple cores.) Also, the operating system can get rid of the overhead that is needed to keep software running on the multiple cores from stepping on each other.
If you mean energy efficiency (amount of processing per watt of electricity consumed), then it could go either way, depending on how the chips are made. But given today's manufacturing processes and the non-linear power curve that we see as clock speeds are increased, the multiple-core solution will almost definitely use less power.
tk421
Apr 5, 06:10 PM
Really? And yet, it seems to be good enough for the top directors in the industry.... some of the recent Academy nominated films were all edited on Final Cut, including the Cohen Brothers' "True Grit", and "Winter's Bone". Also, David Fincher and Francis Ford Coppola used FCP on their last films... these are all people that have access and can afford cutting their films on AVID and yet, they recently choose Final Cut Pro... so why do people even question it? :rolleyes:
It's good enough for a few top directors in the industry, but not very many. They are the exception, not the rule.
Final Cut needs better media management, and also Avid-like support for multiple editors on a single project. I like Final Cut a lot, but Avid has some clear advantages for a feature film. Here's hoping this next version has some big new features!
It's good enough for a few top directors in the industry, but not very many. They are the exception, not the rule.
Final Cut needs better media management, and also Avid-like support for multiple editors on a single project. I like Final Cut a lot, but Avid has some clear advantages for a feature film. Here's hoping this next version has some big new features!
generik
Sep 18, 11:09 PM
All I have to say is:
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
All new diamond dust coated titanium MBP chasis! Strong enough to ground PCs into dust...
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
All new diamond dust coated titanium MBP chasis! Strong enough to ground PCs into dust...
BeefUK
Aug 27, 05:40 AM
Just looked at the shpping dates for the Core 2 Duo's listed on the dell site. There's an estimated shipping date of 11th September, so maybe the 5th is a more releastic release date for Apple's merom upgrade, whatever form it may come in.
Recently Apple's made new products avaliable to buy immediately they are announced. So looks like a little more waiting.
I'm hoping for a Macbook with Core 2 Duo 2GHz!!
Recently Apple's made new products avaliable to buy immediately they are announced. So looks like a little more waiting.
I'm hoping for a Macbook with Core 2 Duo 2GHz!!
skunk
Apr 28, 01:16 PM
I ask you whether Rockwell Blake would be a competent President of the United States. You reply, "I have no idea. Who's Rockwell Blake?" You don't believe that he would be a competent President of the United States. You don't doubt that he would do that. You haven't formed any opinion about whether he would be a competent one.However, in your case, as opposed to your fictional version, you have formed an opinion.
relimw
Sep 12, 11:36 AM
I could do with multiple cores. I render HDV in the background, render projects in After Effects, compress videos in Compressor for DVDs, burn Toast images, download with BitTorrent, while surfing the web and watching 1080i H.264 material. Those extra cores would come in real handy. :)
It would be nice if 10.5 would allow a more 'blind' method to utilize these cores, versus having programmers specificly program for multi-core. Now that would be extremely helpful and allow a more simultanous workflow.
It would be nice if 10.5 would allow a more 'blind' method to utilize these cores, versus having programmers specificly program for multi-core. Now that would be extremely helpful and allow a more simultanous workflow.
Thunderhawks
Apr 6, 03:23 PM
YEP...over 100,000 people bought a Xoom...and clearly half of them will be on this forum telling everybody how much better it is than the iPad...;)
Isn't it 100,000 sold into the distribution channels?
How many are really being bought?
Now that would be a fair comparison.
Isn't it 100,000 sold into the distribution channels?
How many are really being bought?
Now that would be a fair comparison.
Roessnakhan
Mar 22, 12:57 PM
I agree.
But who in their right minds would want to own something called a Playbook? :o
The iPad isn't exactly a name to write home about either. Then, neither is TouchPad, Xoom, or Galaxy Tab.
But who in their right minds would want to own something called a Playbook? :o
The iPad isn't exactly a name to write home about either. Then, neither is TouchPad, Xoom, or Galaxy Tab.
![american flag shirts for women. [In Stock] american flag](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vIfK6HciQvIQpNvINeVIFmXgknusiULgyZ5OxcBGC5N95fdcjXJHcxcGBBQjwiSKU1yCmXihx6EzWTUT60W7BcgDXF7guBaLQeTqcymRNXMJ8Y2KaEixI_-YDdawhaBehnTWNOcor6Og_kBK_knL3g=s0-d "[In Stock] american flag")
robwormald
Mar 22, 02:18 PM
What I'm looking forward to the most is playing with the web browsers on these machines. Our internal business applications run either in a JRE or in a web browser - on iPads we run them as full screen web apps. Works great.
Unfortunately Apple saw fit not to allow full screen web-apps to use the Nitro JS engine, so we're not seeing the same performance bumps there.
I demo'ed a Xoom for a few days - the web app support is frankly atrocious and was basically unusable - unfortunate as we're a Google Apps shop and the integration would have been nice. I don't hold out much hope for the other Honeycomb based tablets.
However, the reviews on the Playbook and WebOS tablets have been pretty stellar about the web browser - so I'm excited to see how webapps work on these (especially WebOS!)
Unfortunately Apple saw fit not to allow full screen web-apps to use the Nitro JS engine, so we're not seeing the same performance bumps there.
I demo'ed a Xoom for a few days - the web app support is frankly atrocious and was basically unusable - unfortunate as we're a Google Apps shop and the integration would have been nice. I don't hold out much hope for the other Honeycomb based tablets.
However, the reviews on the Playbook and WebOS tablets have been pretty stellar about the web browser - so I'm excited to see how webapps work on these (especially WebOS!)
hobo.hopkins
Apr 25, 01:50 PM
"a perfect storm", "overreaction", "typical for the us to sue.."
... sorry, but in what ways do I benefit by having apple track my whereabouts to the day and meter? why isn't there an opt-in (apart from the general 'eat **** or die' TOU) or at least an opt-out for this? why is it so easy to access the data?
... apple deserves to get a beating for this.
they're known for focussing on the user in terms of design and UI of theirdevices... they should also make the step to focus on their users best interest in terms of privacy and freedom, rather than their own greed.
You're right in asking why there isn't a way to opt-out of the collection or clear your past history more easily. To say that it is an invasion of privacy is just false, however, because the information remains private. Only those with access to your phone or computer can see the information.
... sorry, but in what ways do I benefit by having apple track my whereabouts to the day and meter? why isn't there an opt-in (apart from the general 'eat **** or die' TOU) or at least an opt-out for this? why is it so easy to access the data?
... apple deserves to get a beating for this.
they're known for focussing on the user in terms of design and UI of theirdevices... they should also make the step to focus on their users best interest in terms of privacy and freedom, rather than their own greed.
You're right in asking why there isn't a way to opt-out of the collection or clear your past history more easily. To say that it is an invasion of privacy is just false, however, because the information remains private. Only those with access to your phone or computer can see the information.
Al Coholic
Mar 26, 10:45 AM
I think there are two distinct OSX expectations out there:
1.) The "Let's make it pretty" crowd.
2.) Those of us that want some useful features.
...like resume and versions for me. Mission control looks mildly enticing if I could figure it out.
I'm looking forward to all the subtle feature changes and additions. Couldn't care less about a facelift. Leave the Fisher-Price toy themes to MS.
Still not sure what the hell Launcher does differently that can't be achieved with the App folder in the dock but whatever...
1.) The "Let's make it pretty" crowd.
2.) Those of us that want some useful features.
...like resume and versions for me. Mission control looks mildly enticing if I could figure it out.
I'm looking forward to all the subtle feature changes and additions. Couldn't care less about a facelift. Leave the Fisher-Price toy themes to MS.
Still not sure what the hell Launcher does differently that can't be achieved with the App folder in the dock but whatever...
Bill McEnaney
Mar 1, 05:10 AM
It's life Captain but not as we know it.:confused:
I don't understand.
I don't understand.
kwyn
Jun 8, 06:49 PM
How bout Best Buy?
milo
Aug 17, 09:21 AM
You're right. I'm extremely unimpressed that the fastest xeon only days old is actually slower mhz for mhz than a G5 that is pushing 4 year old technology. Really sad.
But overall it's not. Whenever you change chips, you'll probably always find a benchmark that favors the old one. Just because one app isn't faster doesn't mean the new chip is slower.
But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
What are you talking about? The xeon is faster in every native benchmark, the only exception is one render where the slower xeon tied the G5. If you do indeed look at the average specs, the xeons blow away the G5.
Looks like the Xeons got killed by the G5 in Word in their tests.
Because it's running under rosetta, ram has nothing to do with it.
It's odd, seeing as Mac's are still the choice for many musicians that some kind of specs are never given that would be of interest to musicians. The released figures don't do much for me. I'd like to know the polyphony improvements say for Kontakt under both systems in Digital Performer 5.
There have been Logic benchmarks elsewhere, and they're pretty impressive. 1.4-1.5x improvements, pretty nice considering how fast the quad is already for audio plugins.
But overall it's not. Whenever you change chips, you'll probably always find a benchmark that favors the old one. Just because one app isn't faster doesn't mean the new chip is slower.
But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
What are you talking about? The xeon is faster in every native benchmark, the only exception is one render where the slower xeon tied the G5. If you do indeed look at the average specs, the xeons blow away the G5.
Looks like the Xeons got killed by the G5 in Word in their tests.
Because it's running under rosetta, ram has nothing to do with it.
It's odd, seeing as Mac's are still the choice for many musicians that some kind of specs are never given that would be of interest to musicians. The released figures don't do much for me. I'd like to know the polyphony improvements say for Kontakt under both systems in Digital Performer 5.
There have been Logic benchmarks elsewhere, and they're pretty impressive. 1.4-1.5x improvements, pretty nice considering how fast the quad is already for audio plugins.
pkson
Apr 19, 07:15 PM
What is the pic on the bottom? That ain't no Samsung tablet. Looks like a photoshop job.
All Samsung tabs have SAMSUNG blazed across the top of the face.
It's a Samsung Galaxy Tab.
Ridiculous nit-picking. http://kr.engadget.com/tag/samsung+galaxy+tab/ it's in Korean, but I'm sure you get the idea.
@kdarling: look up.. up... 4 posts up.. There you go.
All Samsung tabs have SAMSUNG blazed across the top of the face.
It's a Samsung Galaxy Tab.
Ridiculous nit-picking. http://kr.engadget.com/tag/samsung+galaxy+tab/ it's in Korean, but I'm sure you get the idea.
@kdarling: look up.. up... 4 posts up.. There you go.
G4DP
Mar 26, 02:13 AM
Some of the comments on this board are inane.
1) Launchpad is the selling point...Really? You think Versions, Resume, Mission Control, OS wide Full Screen App support are not selling points?
2) $129 is too much. This one cracks me up. Apple is bundling a $500 product into the OS (and other OS based servers are far more expensive) and people think $129 is too much?
3) When has Apple released an OS, and not shown new features on the final release keynote?
You thing the additional GUI enabled features in the Server version is worth $500? Others are more expensive because they are actual server class. Not a cheap bolt on.
All the "NEW" features are things that should have been preset since 10.2 at least.
Your clearly Apples ideal customer.
1) Launchpad is the selling point...Really? You think Versions, Resume, Mission Control, OS wide Full Screen App support are not selling points?
2) $129 is too much. This one cracks me up. Apple is bundling a $500 product into the OS (and other OS based servers are far more expensive) and people think $129 is too much?
3) When has Apple released an OS, and not shown new features on the final release keynote?
You thing the additional GUI enabled features in the Server version is worth $500? Others are more expensive because they are actual server class. Not a cheap bolt on.
All the "NEW" features are things that should have been preset since 10.2 at least.
Your clearly Apples ideal customer.
thejakill
Mar 22, 01:00 PM
I hope these catch on enough that I can actually buy an iPad.
