IbisDoc
Mar 25, 05:50 PM
Most of the naysayers believe that tilting and touch-screen gaming is for sissies. They want actual analog controllers and such. They'll never change that attitude because they what they were raised on. The younger, current group of gamers will find that tilt & touch is very natural for them so they won't be as prone to griping that the past is slowly fading away.
I like racing games a lot and this one looks terrific. Apple needs to build a game console with two iPad2 chips in it or one quad-core ARM processor. That would make one fine low-cost system with more games than you could possibly want available. Apple would just have to work out some touch & tilt controllers for it.
Touchscreen gaming requires you to LOOK AT THE TOUCHSCREEN. This works if the game is ON THE TOUCHSCREEN (for example, the iPad). This doesn't work if the game is on a different screen (for example, the TV). In touchscreen gaming, the concept is that you are watching the action on the screen that you are touching, not on a different screen 6-8 feet away.
In what way is that a dinosaur concept?
This will have limited usefulness, mainly tilting games. Or maybe a dumb game where you just need to smack the screen to whack a mole or something.
I like racing games a lot and this one looks terrific. Apple needs to build a game console with two iPad2 chips in it or one quad-core ARM processor. That would make one fine low-cost system with more games than you could possibly want available. Apple would just have to work out some touch & tilt controllers for it.
Touchscreen gaming requires you to LOOK AT THE TOUCHSCREEN. This works if the game is ON THE TOUCHSCREEN (for example, the iPad). This doesn't work if the game is on a different screen (for example, the TV). In touchscreen gaming, the concept is that you are watching the action on the screen that you are touching, not on a different screen 6-8 feet away.
In what way is that a dinosaur concept?
This will have limited usefulness, mainly tilting games. Or maybe a dumb game where you just need to smack the screen to whack a mole or something.
jgould
Feb 19, 06:18 PM
Not much I can do with my dorm.
What is the cord that is going into your chemistry book? I've heard of E-Books, but I didn't know they needed power cords... ;)
What is the cord that is going into your chemistry book? I've heard of E-Books, but I didn't know they needed power cords... ;)
SoraLimit
Sep 18, 11:29 PM
He got it from Hong Kong.
Stella
Jan 12, 08:07 AM
If this machine is truly is what the rumour suggests then what is the point?
A thinner MacBook that doesn't have any CD drives?
There has got to be some information that is missing.
Cool name though!
A thinner MacBook that doesn't have any CD drives?
There has got to be some information that is missing.
Cool name though!
63dot
Jan 5, 12:31 AM
NICE!!! I use to have a '71 2002. Granted it had rotted rockers, faded paint and a leaking rear main seal. But the thing started on the coldest day of the year. I loved that car. I'll try to dig up pics.
That's the old BMW for you, tough as nails. I wish BMW, Volvo, and Mercedes still made cars like they used to but building cars that rugged and long lasting is terrible for the bottom line.
I see more '70s BMWs than '80s models out there and it's probably around then that they got smart and built in obsolescence. That being said, I loved the look of the '80s BMWs and at the time, and I thought they were making a huge step up from the 2002. Little did we know.
That's the old BMW for you, tough as nails. I wish BMW, Volvo, and Mercedes still made cars like they used to but building cars that rugged and long lasting is terrible for the bottom line.
I see more '70s BMWs than '80s models out there and it's probably around then that they got smart and built in obsolescence. That being said, I loved the look of the '80s BMWs and at the time, and I thought they were making a huge step up from the 2002. Little did we know.
MasonH
Apr 2, 11:09 PM
I will not feed the trolls… I will not feed the trolls… I will not feed the trolls…
Better not look at the dozens of pics in the big light bleed thread over here either then... might make your mind explode :D
Oh - to prevent even *further* pain don't go look at the pics posted in the light bleed thread at Apple.com either.
Yup, trolls :rolleyes:
Better not look at the dozens of pics in the big light bleed thread over here either then... might make your mind explode :D
Oh - to prevent even *further* pain don't go look at the pics posted in the light bleed thread at Apple.com either.
Yup, trolls :rolleyes:
twoodcc
Sep 6, 09:57 AM
The Superdrive option in the base model has gone.
Earth to Apple: a Combo drive in 2002 was state of the art. A Combo drive in 2004 was a reasonably priced alternative to a DVD burner. A Combo drive in 2005 was an acceptable means of marketing differentiation. A Combo drive in 2006 (particularly with no option to buy a DVD burner) is an embarrassment...
i agree. i would never buy a computer that didn't have a dvd burner....and i'd never advise someone else to either
Earth to Apple: a Combo drive in 2002 was state of the art. A Combo drive in 2004 was a reasonably priced alternative to a DVD burner. A Combo drive in 2005 was an acceptable means of marketing differentiation. A Combo drive in 2006 (particularly with no option to buy a DVD burner) is an embarrassment...
i agree. i would never buy a computer that didn't have a dvd burner....and i'd never advise someone else to either
darknyt
Sep 13, 10:56 PM
Well, I think the new one is thinner; 9-7, right? If you're looking for something temporary I would suggest a cheap generic case from eBay.
No Switcheasy? :(:(:(
Not yet :
Hello,
Sorry but SwitchEasy does not release any product information until it
becomes available for sale on our website.
We will put the information about a product on our website as soon as
we release it.
We can tell you that our designer and development team are currently
working on a new product for iPod Touch 4. If all tests pass it will
be soon available.
For product releases, stay tuned to our website and thank you again
for your patient.
Please feel free to contact us if you have additional questions.
Thank you,
Zoe
SwitchEasy USA Team
No Switcheasy? :(:(:(
Not yet :
Hello,
Sorry but SwitchEasy does not release any product information until it
becomes available for sale on our website.
We will put the information about a product on our website as soon as
we release it.
We can tell you that our designer and development team are currently
working on a new product for iPod Touch 4. If all tests pass it will
be soon available.
For product releases, stay tuned to our website and thank you again
for your patient.
Please feel free to contact us if you have additional questions.
Thank you,
Zoe
SwitchEasy USA Team
fastlane1588
Sep 5, 08:37 AM
come on mbp!
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.
Macky-Mac
Mar 31, 01:35 PM
Japan? Yes. The Nazis? Certainly not. The Soviets defeated the Nazis......
To say any one country defeated the nazis really isn't true. It's as unreasonable a claim as rasmasyean's wargasmic fantasy :p
As it was, the nazi invasion of russia came very close to success. Would the soviets have defeated the nazis if germany hadn't also been engaged in northern africa and then italy and western europe at the same time they were fighting the soviets? Would they have have beaten Hitler if he hadn't gone against the advice of his generals and made some disastrous decisions? Didn't the Persian supply corridor factor into the soviets being able to hold off the germans? etc etc etc
The reality is that the allied forces beat the nazis and not any one country.
To say any one country defeated the nazis really isn't true. It's as unreasonable a claim as rasmasyean's wargasmic fantasy :p
As it was, the nazi invasion of russia came very close to success. Would the soviets have defeated the nazis if germany hadn't also been engaged in northern africa and then italy and western europe at the same time they were fighting the soviets? Would they have have beaten Hitler if he hadn't gone against the advice of his generals and made some disastrous decisions? Didn't the Persian supply corridor factor into the soviets being able to hold off the germans? etc etc etc
The reality is that the allied forces beat the nazis and not any one country.
newrigel
Nov 16, 11:03 PM
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.
CONTENT CREATION PRO'S will see the benefit! Like DAW's host running multiple plugins and virtual instruments etc. Video guy's that are rendering in the background while doing a file format conversion task while @ the same time doing a cut copy paste edit on some video... Any processes that are CONCURRENT! THESE are the things that will take advantage of multiple cores... the kids on myspace farting around on the net emailing and such are really useless for multiple cores and us pro guy's NEED this multitasking power... BRING IT ON!
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.
CONTENT CREATION PRO'S will see the benefit! Like DAW's host running multiple plugins and virtual instruments etc. Video guy's that are rendering in the background while doing a file format conversion task while @ the same time doing a cut copy paste edit on some video... Any processes that are CONCURRENT! THESE are the things that will take advantage of multiple cores... the kids on myspace farting around on the net emailing and such are really useless for multiple cores and us pro guy's NEED this multitasking power... BRING IT ON!
Mercury
Apr 2, 07:02 PM
interesting. Wonder if they'll keep variations of this in rotation while adding model-specific ones?
holbie
Apr 2, 10:04 PM
I will not feed the trolls� I will not feed the trolls� I will not feed the trolls�
imac_japan
May 3, 10:18 AM
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.
I agree !! but they need to do more than provide quick cool products...The ipod and the itunes music store isn't going to last because there are going to be others. They need to push a product (ie: cheap mac) into the home ! People will buy it
I agree !! but they need to do more than provide quick cool products...The ipod and the itunes music store isn't going to last because there are going to be others. They need to push a product (ie: cheap mac) into the home ! People will buy it
JGowan
Jan 13, 01:02 AM
See my post below
animals with funny sayings
cute funny sayings about life
Pics of Cute and Funny Animals
iRockMan1
Apr 3, 12:02 AM
This is the best ad Apple's done in a long time.
roland.g
Sep 1, 01:45 PM
One more thing... they'll change the name from iMac to Mac, bringing a perfect symmetry to their product line-up:
Mac
Mac Pro
MacBook
MacBook Pro
Umm, no. They would have changed the name in January when they did the MBP and went intel. The i will stay because it is the internet or integrated Mac
Mac
Mac Pro
MacBook
MacBook Pro
Umm, no. They would have changed the name in January when they did the MBP and went intel. The i will stay because it is the internet or integrated Mac
nospeed411
Feb 18, 04:41 PM
I want that poster!!! Where did you get it?
Doraemon
Mar 18, 09:35 AM
I didn't sign either.
a) I don't think that market growth is necessarily good for Apple.
b) We don't need to save Apple. It's not endangered.
c) I wouldn't want a Commodore-type of computer. My TV is smaller than my displays. Besides, a TV cannot handle the high resolutions state-of-the-art video cards deliver.
d) With the eMac, Apple already has a good entry-level computer. What I'd like to see would be a <$1000 head-less iMac. But with the full range of features (so not a Commodore or whatever).
a) I don't think that market growth is necessarily good for Apple.
b) We don't need to save Apple. It's not endangered.
c) I wouldn't want a Commodore-type of computer. My TV is smaller than my displays. Besides, a TV cannot handle the high resolutions state-of-the-art video cards deliver.
d) With the eMac, Apple already has a good entry-level computer. What I'd like to see would be a <$1000 head-less iMac. But with the full range of features (so not a Commodore or whatever).
macman2790
Nov 27, 01:19 PM
this would be cool. It would even be better if someone other than the digitimes discovered it.
KevanDual2.5
Sep 6, 08:56 AM
Maybe i am alone on this one....
I think the 24" iMac G5 is the beginning of the end of the G5 iMac. We all watched as the outstanding G4 iMac grew from a 15" to a 17" and finally to 20". While the stunning design remained the same, the 20" just didn't look as good as the 2 previous models. The proportions were wrong and it looked top-heavy.
I am sitting in front of an original 23" Apple Display (plastic rather than aluminium). The new iMac cannot be much smaller than it. I firmly believe that the 24" will be, and should be, as big as it gets. I just hope that heat doesn't become a problem with the Core 2 Duo chips else the G5 iMac may have to evolve into a new enclosure.
Anyone else have thoughts similar?
I think the 24" iMac G5 is the beginning of the end of the G5 iMac. We all watched as the outstanding G4 iMac grew from a 15" to a 17" and finally to 20". While the stunning design remained the same, the 20" just didn't look as good as the 2 previous models. The proportions were wrong and it looked top-heavy.
I am sitting in front of an original 23" Apple Display (plastic rather than aluminium). The new iMac cannot be much smaller than it. I firmly believe that the 24" will be, and should be, as big as it gets. I just hope that heat doesn't become a problem with the Core 2 Duo chips else the G5 iMac may have to evolve into a new enclosure.
Anyone else have thoughts similar?
jaxstate
Jul 18, 02:44 PM
About darn time. I'm glad it will be a rental service. I rarely watch a movie more than once, and this will keep the priced down. Anything over 4 bucks per view isn't going to work.
SciFrog
Oct 9, 06:08 PM
Yup, but actually almost at 4mio with points of my old team combined ;)
What I am shooting for is the #5 overall spot of the team, maybe by year end...
What I am shooting for is the #5 overall spot of the team, maybe by year end...
No comments:
Post a Comment