or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Elijahg

I'm typing this on a 2009 MBP, and it's running faster than on Snow Leopard. I've got a 2006 Mac Pro on Lion too, also running faster than SL. Did you do a completely clean install, without restoring user settings too?Have a look here.
I have absolutely no complaint about the App Store method of upgrading (I thought it was a damn impressive feat), though I do feel the cost of the USB stick is a little high. Of course there are more costs involved in a USB stick, but Lion's going to be around for a few years yet so they've plenty of time to sell them all. Snow Leopard was $29 on DVD iirc. I do agree that it's a great price for Lion to be just $29, though there doesn't seem to be as many features packed...
You'll find it's $69 for the USB drive.
I suspect as the article says it's partly the iOS feature-creep that some don't like, along with removal of Rosetta, and perhaps even the lack of Java (although it's auto-installed when needed). Also, I bet quite a high proportion of people are refraining because they don't have access to a high speed connection to download, or simply prefer to have a physical copy of the OS. Paying much more for a USB version isn't going to help matters. Apple's always pushing...
Actually, Lion runs perfectly well without a OpenCL GPU. My old 2006 Mini (used as a headless server) has a GMA950. Most apps don't use OpenCL yet, and many never will, as GPUs are only good at simple, massively parallel tasks. CPUs can process complex tasks much more efficiently. The GPUs support OpenGL features years before Apple gets around to supporting them in their OpenGL stack. OpenGL 3.0 has been around since 2008, but only in 2011 had Apple actually supported it...
Because GPU over Thunderbolt would be slow. How about multiple GPUs? Thunderbolt provides a couple of 4x PCIe lanes, not the 16x that just one GPU requires. Storage, networking, fine. GPU? No.
Most Mac apps do use multiple CPUs, all the iApps do for a start. Also, any 64-bit app can use over 4GB of RAM. If the power of the Mac Pro is disputed, why is it my 2006 MP is still comparable to new iMacs today? An iMac from 2006 with a C2D has no chance of competing, but the Xeons are so well designed that they seem to have the power that the cheap consumer chips can't quite get. They effectively stay faster, for longer.
The iMacs do have a PCIe bus, it's just not available in a form that uses a standard port. Apple could easily add the port to the logic board if they so wanted. Thunderbolt isn't as fast as the latest PCIe either, so you won't find a GPU in a box attached to your Mac via Thunderbolt any time soon. No doubt Thunderbolt will get faster, but so will PCIe. By your admission, more work is being done on the GPU, so surely that should be more reason to have it accessible in some...
I completely agree with you. The Mac Pros back in 2006 weren't quite so overpriced as they are now, the latest ones are utterly extortionate. It's no wonder people aren't buying them. I have a 2006 Mac Pro that's still going great, albeit with a slightly dodgy PSU. Buying an initially more expensive machine that's upgradeable really makes sense to me. My MP cost about £2500 in 2006, but if it wasn't for upgradeable graphics, I would have been forced to sell on the...
So VMware just released Fusion 4, why isn't there a press release disguised as a story for that too? MacRumors reported it, but didn't make it seem like it was paid for.
New Posts  All Forums: