or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Marvin

You're saying their quarterly financial earnings improved with Icahn's involvement? I doubt it. You must be talking about their stock price rising, which has nothing to do with the success of Apple's business. The stock price changed with the buyback, which they set out long before Carl got involved:http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2012/03/19Apple-Announces-Plans-to-Initiate-Dividend-and-Share-Repurchase-Program.htmlMaybe Carl has some influence over other traders'...
We know that the iMac makes up at least 1m units per quarter from what Tim said (700,000 units down when not available for approx 2 months out of 3 in a quarter), this would make the iMac at least 4 million out of the 4.656m desktops they reported in their 2012 10K filing. This leaves around 700k for both the Mini and Pro per year. I would say the Mini would take a slightly higher share but the Mac Pro is likely somewhere between 200-350k per year or 50-90k per quarter....
If you are talking about workstations, there isn't a significant enough market for ones with massive amounts of RAM. If you mean servers in a shared environment where the RAM expense isn't allocated to an individual, they already had a server and stated nobody was buying them. It's all very well being the lone voice enthusiastically saying you'd buy one but unless there's another 100,000 people every quarter who feel the same way, it's not a good business decision for...
Assuming there is such a program in need of a 512GB data set repeatedly transferred to storage, an SSD will hold up to the writes. The Mac Pro uses Samsung MLC SSD and 256GB of it stood up to 6 Petabytes of writes. It's also possible to use an external RAID drive.
There might not be enough PCIe lanes. According to Anandtech, they had to use all the ones available. There's 40 from the CPU and 16 each per GPU only leaves you with 8. The SSD either gets 1 or 2 and 6 for Thunderbolt and they had to use more with a PLX chip.I did expect them to make a wider version of the SSD but again it's about sales volume. How many people are really going to spend ~$1800 on internal storage. Although the first 1TB is $800, the second wouldn't be as...
It makes sense that they would - they pretty much have to. Techniques they used decades ago would seem laughable now with storage capability, processing power, wireless tech, camera tech and the internet but at the time, nobody would even think it was going on.This isn't just an issue for customers, Apple's employees use the devices too. Imagine if someone in the intelligence community discovered Apple's plans for the iPhone and decided to trade in stocks on that...
It's better than no redundancy. It is two copies of the same data but certain kinds of errors can break both sets of data as they are synced in real-time - also any actions done to the RAID set by the OS or software can break the whole thing e.g:http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1615649Offline backups aren't synced in real-time so it allows you to recover accidentally deleted files as well as recover from corruption that would otherwise be copied and any damage...
You wouldn't be in the same position as you'd have a backup. The phrase 'RAID isn't a backup' just means that it isn't a backup for a singular copy of data. If you have one RAID to backup another then one of the RAIDs is a backup because you have two separate copies of the data not synced in real-time.You also wouldn't need 2x4TB unless your 8TB RAID is full and you need to backup all of it. You only need as much as you've used on the drive and enough for the important...
It's not a practical concern, if you have any program needing to use 512GB of RAM or anywhere close to that, it needs to be rewritten. Also, 10GB/day still lasts 18 years. Hard drives typically only last 5 years. That's also if you use the cheaper SSDs. The non-bargain basement SSDs and larger capacity SSDs last longer:http://www.anandtech.com/show/6459/samsung-ssd-840-testing-the-endurance-of-tlc-nandA 256GB MLC drive at 10GB/day is rated for 70 years. There are tests...
Write endurance is listed here:http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-reliability-failure-rate,2923.htmlIt says writing 10GB/day would last over 18 years with modern SSDs. SSDs do need to use TRIM or idle periods to stay healthy but they should be fine for swapping as long as it's not TBs per day. Disk swap isn't used at all if you have enough RAM though so it would just be for scratch disks but even then RAM is used first and it would be GBs of data.Every RAID 5 setup...
New Posts  All Forums: