SONY FOCUSING ON IPTV, NOT BLU-RAY RECORDING OR TIMESHIFTING
"As far as the consumer experience goes, we (Sony) think we can deliver a much better experience through components (vs integrated Blu-ray recorders), reliability and the future with IPTV, moving to that medium to deliver timeshifting.?*
Especially with Apple's billion dollar server on the horizon and recent video streaming patent application coming.
Maybe an iMac/Blu-ray RW will be as prevalent as homes with a pool. But equally as useful or used.
Abster2core - I wouldn't haved believe this unless I had seen it linked. Sony really seems to have hedged it's bet in multiple areas. Their actions kind of acknowledge that Blu-ray may not become the defacto standard for all media but they'll profit and dip their toes into other distribution methods.
That being said I'm happy with my Blu-ray player (just ordered 3 more movies today) and eventually I'll get more into downloading movies but I think that downloads should offer something beyond what a disc can do before I value them as much as a physical disc. I think Apple's going down the right path with iTunes LP and the ability to create fancier starting pages.
Ok, first of all I have no wish to offend any of you out there because of my lack of knowledge concerning computers. I have found that SOME (far from everyone) of computer geeks (probably because they never get laid IRL) tend to snap your head off when you say something obviously stupid about computers, the net or other related stuff, so I want to warn you: I am a 100% "n00b", at least compared to most of you who post here. I mean no harm, I just want to get some advice on what to do.
So, here we go!
I want to buy an iMac, and it will be my "standard" computer. I will use it for games, internet, movies, film/photo/music-editing, studies etc. I plan to have it for a while. I have around $2,100, 2,200 to spend but want a better one than the most expensive iMac you can order today.
Well hopefully we can help you out. In short do not buy todays models as the expectation is that they will be replaced before the end of the month. Maybe even next week. In any event buying a computer should be about finding one that fits your needs
Quote:
I want quad-core (preferably the i5 or i7) and overall, better parts in the computer than today's iMac, since I'm going to be spending a lot on it. Rumour tells me that an upgrade is coming, and I hope that the hardware will be better, otherwise I'm buying a PC instead.
Well we are all hoping for better hardware and right now I believe that is coming. The important thing in my mind is quad core processors and significantly improved GPU hardware. If these don't come then you might be justified in looking at different hardware. Honestly though leaving Mac OS/X behind is not going to do it for many. After all a computer is more than it's hardware.
Quote:
However, I have no idea if these rumours are good.
They are rumors what do you expect. By the way responses here aren't much more.
Quote:
What worries me is that they're going to add a version of the i7 core that only has 1.60 GHz to 2.00 GHz in CPU. This doesn't sound really good? I don't really know what it means but I know that the higher GHz, the better.
Actually what you know has to be qualified. First; it is only useful to compare clock rates with in the same architecture. Second; because i5 & i7 do more per clock it is hard to project how well a two GHz machine will perform with todays applications code. Third; Apples new Snow Leopard is designed from the ground up to support multiple cores very well, you do not want to buy todays two core machines.
So you have to wait for performance info. Early reports have i5 performance numbers all over the map. Some of that due to early BIOS releases and other issues. In any event when Turbo Boost and other features can be fully leveraged i5 can be very fast even with the low speed clocks.
The big catch here is good cooling. This is something you have to worry about on Apple hardware. We won't really know what to expect performance wise until the hardware is in hand and tested under load.
Quote:
1.60 sounds like a grandpa computer! *prejudice*
1.60 means nothing until bench marking is done.
Quote:
Overall - I want my games and future games to run very smoothly on my new, very expensive computer, I want a full version of Adobe Photoshop to work extremely well and that the computer is FAST and sexy. The iMac design IS sexy.
I can not read the collective minds of Apple but the potential is there for a fast machine. Especially if those machines adopt XEON processors. The low end could end up pathetically slow if the processors are not allowed to crank up the clock.
Quote:
So, why so low GHz? Doesn't the iMacs of today have higher? Why would the lower it??
Different processor!! You can not compare clock rates. The only thing you can compare is the performance of the apps that you use.
One possible hang up that I haven't seen mentioned (apologies if I missed it) is regional encoding and whether that has to be also integrated in the OS. The regional encoding of BR is far more strict than DVD ? and also, for someone like me who does not live in the U.S., incredibly annoying. The strict encoding does not affect all BR's of course, only about 25%, but that includes all of the Criterion Collection movies that I most want.
(Anyone who has not seen Black Narcissus on BR has not experienced one of the best 90 minutes that movies can offer.)
On Thursday, Apple filed a patent application entitled Synchronization of Media State Across Multiple Devices, which appears to combine local iPod and iPhone synchronization with MobileMe and cloud-computing services.
The patent, if implemented, would note where you had stopped watching a video on any connected device, and would automatically set that as the start time on a different device. Watch a movie over lunch, then pick up in the middle when you get home on your iMac or Apple TV, without spending the excruciating 30 seconds it takes now to find exactly where you left off.
It's really the killer feature of digital content. Hell pretty soon you will just walk in your home and your content will follow you (I know Motorola did a RFID demo of this a few years back)
When you look at what Sonos is doing with their zone audio with iPhone/iPod Touch you see that consumers are going to become spoiled quickly and expect their "paid for" content to be available across multiple devices.
I can not read the collective minds of Apple but the potential is there for a fast machine. Especially if those machines adopt XEON processors. The low end could end up pathetically slow if the processors are not allowed to crank up the clock.
A perfect example: the 17" MacBook Pro I have at work.
Load something processor intensive like one of those distributed computing things. Run the benchmark tool to see how fast it is. Confirm this number by running it for 1 minute.
Then turn it on and let it run for 10 minutes. Watch your processor temperature go through the roof and the performance drop 40%.
Without adequate cooling it doesn't matter what Apple puts under the hood because after a few minutes it'll be throttling itself to keep from overheating.
I'm still going to wait and see what Apple has up its sleeve, but I can hear a Lynnfield based hackintosh calling my name.
The Mac marketshare is on the verge of rising past 10%. They now have 9.4% in the US. While Apple?s marketshare can?t possibly match HP?s 25% as long they sell machines with an average selling price of $1,500, compared to that of non-Mac PC at $800 (and likely lower if you count netbooks), you are comparing disparate things since I know you are looking at the OS not the OEM sales. There are very different business models that will keep Apple from ever having the OS marketshare that MS has. Plain and simple.
try including outside the USA as well, their market share drops a lot then.
But it is the same argument has most of your make as to why blu-ray isn't high, you claim DVD and iTunes (pretends to be) HD downloads are good enough, if that is the case, why aren't you all running machines other than Macs, because at the end of the day, they are all good enough.
One possible hang up that I haven't seen mentioned (apologies if I missed it) is regional encoding and whether that has to be also integrated in the OS. The regional encoding of BR is far more strict than DVD ? and also, for someone like me who does not live in the U.S., incredibly annoying. The strict encoding does not affect all BR's of course, only about 25%, but that includes all of the Criterion Collection movies that I most want.
(Anyone who has not seen Black Narcissus on BR has not experienced one of the best 90 minutes that movies can offer.)
What do you mean "far more strict than DVD", there are three regions in blu-ray, eight in DVD, has is three more restrictive than eight?
try including outside the USA as well, their market share drops a lot then.
But it is the same argument has most of your make as to why blu-ray isn't high, you claim DVD and iTunes (pretends to be) HD downloads are good enough, if that is the case, why aren't you all running machines other than Macs, because at the end of the day, they are all good enough.
That is because you fail to see that Windows or a $400 PC is not "good enough" for all of us. Just as there are some of you that want Blu-ray for backup on your PC, you have that option with certain caveats, just as us nasty Mac users has certain caveats if we want to use certain HW and SW. You keep failing into your OCD where it has to be all or nothing, but what you war is not necessarily what anyone else wants and may not be a good business move for a company.
You need to learn to see things fom that perspective. I don't care if Apple makes Blu-Ray a BTO option or not. I don't think will add them due tontge cost of the 9.5mm drives, there push or digital media via iTunes and constantly trying to make their machines smaller, but that is just a theory. I certainly won't get a BRD in a Mac and would prefer optical drives go away from their notebooks completely in favour of a larger battery and a 2nd HDD, but I don't I'll get my wish. I certainly won't take it personally and scream "Apple is teh doomed" when
it doesn't happen. It's not about you or me; a company should do wht they think is best for their bottom line.
A perfect example: the 17" MacBook Pro I have at work.
Load something processor intensive like one of those distributed computing things. Run the benchmark tool to see how fast it is. Confirm this number by running it for 1 minute.
Then turn it on and let it run for 10 minutes. Watch your processor temperature go through the roof and the performance drop 40%.
This is a huge problem on Macs and has me concerned about the coming iMacs. If they can't shift to Turbo Boost mode then the lower clocked models will suffer. Combine Apples usual hot machines with rumored thinner models and you have a combo that could lead to worst performance on average than todays models.
That is why I'm hoping the reports about thinner iMacs are an error. Either that or Apple has become far more proactive in heat removal. IMac is a lot of money and the last thing you want is performance regressions due to thermal issues.
At least on my MBP I'm giving up some of that performance for portability. An iMac should be able to harvest all the CPU cycles available.
Quote:
Without adequate cooling it doesn't matter what Apple puts under the hood because after a few minutes it'll be throttling itself to keep from overheating.
Exactly. Even more important is that we could see thermal throttling in the GPUs too. I'm really hoping for some ethical benchmarking of these new machines so that people can buy well informed.
By ethical I mean a real system in a real office like environment. Not like Intel does with open boards sitting under an air conditioner duct.
Now given all that concern I have high hopes iMac won't be that bad. Even if it is less than ideal the next rev ought to get 32nm chips which hopefully further address the heating issues.
Quote:
I'm still going to wait and see what Apple has up its sleeve, but I can hear a Lynnfield based hackintosh calling my name.
Personally I have to resist the urge to buy. To many other things pulling at the wallet. Besides I really want an iMac that is hopefully designed not to have these issues. However a heavily refactored iMac could change my mind. If the difference is as dramatic as the differences between my early 2008 MBP and todays model I might be interested. That is a total over haul of the iMac but it is past due anyways.
Core i7 920XM (2GHz Clarksfield) runs at 3.2GHz when only one core is active and at 2.8GHz when only 2 cores are active. For any single-threaded application, Core i7 920XM should give you much better performance than a Core-2 running at 3.06GHz.
When running multiple applications, or running an application that can take advantage of parallel processing (e.g. video encoding), 920XM with four cores / eight threads should provide significantly better throughput than a Core2 Duo even if each core/thread runs only at 2GHz on the 920XM.
Don't forget the prices of these mobile hyperthreaded processors....
i7 720QM (1.6GHz/2.8GHz with TurboBurst) -- $364 each per thousand
i7 820QM (1.73GHz/3.066GHz with TurboBurst)-- $546 each per thousand
i7 920XM (2.0GHz/3.2GHz with TurboBurst) -- $1054 each per thousand
The first two processors have a maximum thermal design point of 45W, while the last one is 55W.
I'm sure anyone wanting an upgraded processor is still going to pay a premium over cost for these mobile processors, as I have seen elsewhere:
In comparison, these faster desktop CPUs are at a lower price point, but have a higher TDP:
i5 750 (2.66GHz/3.2GHz with TurboBurst) -- $196 each per thousand -- 95W TDP
i7 860 (2.8GHz/3.46GHz with TurboBurst and is hyperthreaded) -- $284 each per thousand -- 95W TDP
The i5 750 is not hyperthreaded, but still probably outperforms the i7 920XM in most tasks at about a fifth of the cost.
What isn't Apple seeing in this? Besides wanting to deliver a low power consuming 'Green Machine' at the consumer's expense.
Perhaps not enough of a profit margin....
Sadly, I'm not having much hope in Apple using the i5 750 or the i7 860. I'm still debating whether I should just buy a cheap Windows 7 laptop and wait until the next iMac rollout (circa May 2010) or just build a far more cost effective Windows 7 machine.
I'm sure I'd still be disappointed in the components of the May 2010 iMac....
Each year it is becoming clearer and clearer why they killed the clone program. Nobody would buy their limited overpriced hardware selection!
That is because you fail to see that Windows or a $400 PC is not "good enough" for all of us. Just as there are some of you that want Blu-ray for backup on your PC, you have that option with certain caveats, just as us nasty Mac users has certain caveats if we want to use certain HW and SW. You keep failing into your OCD where it has to be all or nothing, but what you war is not necessarily what anyone else wants and may not be a good business move for a company.
I haven't failed to see anything (and don't call me nasty), I don't really care what device anyone purchases, I don't like the fact the decision is make for us, there isn't any think different anymore.
I'm not worried about blu-ray recording, I would like the option of blu-ray playback as I live in a country with poor internet infrastructure and data caps (20GB don't download you much movies, a lot of people here have 1 or 5GB caps). I also don't like the restictions that movie downloads lump you with (currently very high region coding and non interdevice operations)
Correction: in my previous post I said that the "first 2 pages" of this thread are dedicated to Blue-Ray. I now would have to say all pages are. Let the Blue-Ray topic die, folks! Performance is what matters most! Speaking of which...
Quote:
Originally Posted by macshark
Core i7 920XM (2GHz Clarksfield) runs at 3.2GHz when only one core is active and at 2.8GHz when only 2 cores are active. For any single-threaded application, Core i7 920XM should give you much better performance than a Core-2 running at 3.06GHz.
So long as the "real world performance" for single-threaded apps matches or best the current top of the line iMac, I will be happy. But seeing that the 2GHz version of the CPU spoken of in this article is priced rather high, Apple may not choose it. Hence we may end up with iMacs that are slower in "real world performance."
Quote:
Originally Posted by macshark
When running multiple applications, or running an application that can take advantage of parallel processing (e.g. video encoding), 920XM with four cores / eight threads should provide significantly better throughput than a Core2 Duo even if each core/thread runs only at 2GHz on the 920XM.
I have "multiple apps open" at the same time all the time, but I believe you are referring to "having multiple apps open and actively working hard on something" which is a different matter. I agree that there are cases where multiple CPUs gives a big boost, but there are many situations where a super-clocked single CPU will yield the best performance. But again, if these new CPUs can crank themselves up beyond 3GHz, then all may be well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
1.60 means nothing until bench marking is done. The low end could end up pathetically slow if the processors are not allowed to crank up the clock.
So... would Adobe Photoshop work well on a "better" iMac without killing everything (and itself) when trying to switch brushes...? My PC from 2004 is currently doing that with PS 7.0...
If your PC is from 2004 you should see a considerable speed up on todays hardware.
A key consideration here is Photoshop which is not modern software. Unfortunately PS ability to leverage modern software and hardware is very limited. So what I'm saying is that when you buy a new Mac you will need to budget for a PS upgrade. An upgrade that we would hope can and will take advantage of multiple cores and OpenCL.
Quote:
And would I be able to play WoW, Civ IV and Sims 3?
Depending on the game, they can be very dependant upon the GPU. Since I'm not a gamer the only thing I can offer is that GPU cards are a lot better than what you would get from 2004.
In any event you are in the same boat as the rest of us. That is waiting for Apple to deliver new hardware. Nowthis might not go over well but if you are in a hurry for a game and PS machine you will get a lot more with a PC running Windows. Especially considering that PS is way ahead on Windows.
The quality of Blue Ray is better then regular DVDs. Further, the storage is better as well. Still those limited reasons to like Blue Ray do not come any where near the reasons to dislike Blue Ray.
First, Blue Ray disks are typically quite a bit more expensive then regular DVDs. Second, although the price of players are coming down, a $200 Blue Ray player doesn't satisfy the same quality level that a $50 DVD player does. The cheap Blue Ray players are made from low quality parts. You get what you pay for. Third, Apple doesn't want to put Blue Ray players on a Mac because Sony's license requires the OS and hardware to be locked down to prevent any possibility of the ripping of Blue Rays movies. This effects the quality of hardware performance even when the disks aren't being used. In other words, the putting a Blue Ray drive in a Mac will lower all Mac Blue Ray equipped Macs performance as the processors will be more taxed to comply with all the DRM requirements imposed by Sony. The Blue Screen of death will become far more common. Fourth, I legally rip movies all the time. For instance, all my DVDs are copied to a server so I can access them from a central location. Blue Ray prevents this.
Although slightly old, this link explains the reasons consumers should dislike Blue Ray. Don't buy the hype. Blue Ray really is a bag of hurt.
For the home entertainment system, Blu-ray is great. A Blu-ray appliance and a huge ass HDTV make a perfect combo. Having a Blu-ray player on Apple?s most popular Mac, their notebooks, is pointless for all but those that jerk it to tech specs.
Note that even CEO of Netflix stated that within 2 years digital streaming will beat out optical media in their business.
I think that is a little optimistic as the infrastructure in the US is no where near able to support the speed need to make that practical especially as both DSL and Cable have caps as low as 3 Mbps. In some areas due to phone line issues DSL is limited to a maximum of 1.5 Mbps. You need a more uniform and higher throughput than that to make digital streaming real practical.
I think everyone's right. We don't need more optical drives [more hardware failures], but we do need the OS to reliably support BR recorders across the board. This means a system that gives us the aforementioned capabilities without compromising our Mac hardware -> a BR burner that is swappable with HDs and extra batteries in one bay. People have always talked about swappable bays in notebooks. No Mac hardware failures and an extra bay for optical haters to use an extra HD or carry a lighter machine.
There is no reason why a machine should be without a current tech burner. BR actually has nothing to is with it. It's simply current tech. Video will always increase in size. It will never decrease. After BR there will be another format requiring more space. This means BR now and it means another format in the future.
In the past DVD burners were not a Mac Pro first option so why should a BR burner be in the Pro machines only. Why am I not able to simply swap my HD, battery or BR burner in a drive bay in 2010?
It's true that no format is fail safe for data but optical is the safest format. I recently consolidated my books of DVD data backups from 2005 and filled up my new 1TB HD. The discs were still readable even with scratches by a Mac several generations newer.
Those of you who are saying you do all of your backups etc online are on crack or you must have backups measured in MB's. Ever try uploading GB or TB backups to MobileMe or other service? Painfully slow. For anything over MM's 20GB it's unrealistic really and I gather that's why it's set at 20GB. Didn't you catch the latest memo regarding the biggest cloud failure in history? Yeah, have fun relying on "the cloud". For now optical is the way to go for serious backups. [Or multiple redundant raids that none of us will have].
Btw, BR media is quite cheap when you consider that 10 DVD5's fit on one BR DL disc. But heck if it's just data backups we're talking about [because I too have no need to watch BR on my computer], then just throw everything away and release $100.00 1TB SD cards so we can easily backup data. There's would be no need for HD's, the cloud or optical media if we had cheap 1TB SD cards.
Apple has and will continue to cut off our access to ANY form of 21st century media technologies, BluRay, CableCARD, etc (ones not invented at Apple anyway). This shouldn't come as any shock looking how they have managed the App Store applications is it any wonder that Apple feels they can get away with just about anything at this point?
As long as those "21st century media technologies, BluRay, CableCARD, etc" are available elsewhere, as they are, Apple is not cutting off your access. Try for more rational thoughts, less drama, ok?
Comments
Then perhaps JVC's Blu-ray recorder is what you should have. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10348492-1.html
I'd rather spend $200-$400 for a blu-ray burner option than spending two grand for that JVC.
Tue 22/09/200
SONY FOCUSING ON IPTV, NOT BLU-RAY RECORDING OR TIMESHIFTING
"As far as the consumer experience goes, we (Sony) think we can deliver a much better experience through components (vs integrated Blu-ray recorders), reliability and the future with IPTV, moving to that medium to deliver timeshifting.?*
Especially with Apple's billion dollar server on the horizon and recent video streaming patent application coming.
Maybe an iMac/Blu-ray RW will be as prevalent as homes with a pool. But equally as useful or used.
*http://www.current.com.au/2009/09/22...VAYYNOVMX.html
Abster2core - I wouldn't haved believe this unless I had seen it linked. Sony really seems to have hedged it's bet in multiple areas. Their actions kind of acknowledge that Blu-ray may not become the defacto standard for all media but they'll profit and dip their toes into other distribution methods.
That being said I'm happy with my Blu-ray player (just ordered 3 more movies today) and eventually I'll get more into downloading movies but I think that downloads should offer something beyond what a disc can do before I value them as much as a physical disc. I think Apple's going down the right path with iTunes LP and the ability to create fancier starting pages.
I'd rather spend $200-$400 for a blu-ray burner option than spending two grand for that JVC.
Then exercise your right and buy and internal or external Blu-ray burner.
Ok, first of all I have no wish to offend any of you out there because of my lack of knowledge concerning computers. I have found that SOME (far from everyone) of computer geeks (probably because they never get laid IRL) tend to snap your head off when you say something obviously stupid about computers, the net or other related stuff, so I want to warn you: I am a 100% "n00b", at least compared to most of you who post here. I mean no harm, I just want to get some advice on what to do.
So, here we go!
I want to buy an iMac, and it will be my "standard" computer. I will use it for games, internet, movies, film/photo/music-editing, studies etc. I plan to have it for a while. I have around $2,100, 2,200 to spend but want a better one than the most expensive iMac you can order today.
Well hopefully we can help you out. In short do not buy todays models as the expectation is that they will be replaced before the end of the month. Maybe even next week. In any event buying a computer should be about finding one that fits your needs
I want quad-core (preferably the i5 or i7) and overall, better parts in the computer than today's iMac, since I'm going to be spending a lot on it. Rumour tells me that an upgrade is coming, and I hope that the hardware will be better, otherwise I'm buying a PC instead.
Well we are all hoping for better hardware and right now I believe that is coming. The important thing in my mind is quad core processors and significantly improved GPU hardware. If these don't come then you might be justified in looking at different hardware. Honestly though leaving Mac OS/X behind is not going to do it for many. After all a computer is more than it's hardware.
However, I have no idea if these rumours are good.
They are rumors what do you expect. By the way responses here aren't much more.
What worries me is that they're going to add a version of the i7 core that only has 1.60 GHz to 2.00 GHz in CPU. This doesn't sound really good? I don't really know what it means but I know that the higher GHz, the better.
Actually what you know has to be qualified. First; it is only useful to compare clock rates with in the same architecture. Second; because i5 & i7 do more per clock it is hard to project how well a two GHz machine will perform with todays applications code. Third; Apples new Snow Leopard is designed from the ground up to support multiple cores very well, you do not want to buy todays two core machines.
So you have to wait for performance info. Early reports have i5 performance numbers all over the map. Some of that due to early BIOS releases and other issues. In any event when Turbo Boost and other features can be fully leveraged i5 can be very fast even with the low speed clocks.
The big catch here is good cooling. This is something you have to worry about on Apple hardware. We won't really know what to expect performance wise until the hardware is in hand and tested under load.
1.60 sounds like a grandpa computer! *prejudice*
1.60 means nothing until bench marking is done.
Overall - I want my games and future games to run very smoothly on my new, very expensive computer, I want a full version of Adobe Photoshop to work extremely well and that the computer is FAST and sexy. The iMac design IS sexy.
I can not read the collective minds of Apple but the potential is there for a fast machine. Especially if those machines adopt XEON processors. The low end could end up pathetically slow if the processors are not allowed to crank up the clock.
So, why so low GHz? Doesn't the iMacs of today have higher? Why would the lower it??
Different processor!! You can not compare clock rates. The only thing you can compare is the performance of the apps that you use.
Dave
(Anyone who has not seen Black Narcissus on BR has not experienced one of the best 90 minutes that movies can offer.)
Speak of the Devil. Today on Macworld
Apple aims to syncronize movies among multiple devices
On Thursday, Apple filed a patent application entitled Synchronization of Media State Across Multiple Devices, which appears to combine local iPod and iPhone synchronization with MobileMe and cloud-computing services.
The patent, if implemented, would note where you had stopped watching a video on any connected device, and would automatically set that as the start time on a different device. Watch a movie over lunch, then pick up in the middle when you get home on your iMac or Apple TV, without spending the excruciating 30 seconds it takes now to find exactly where you left off.
It's really the killer feature of digital content. Hell pretty soon you will just walk in your home and your content will follow you (I know Motorola did a RFID demo of this a few years back)
When you look at what Sonos is doing with their zone audio with iPhone/iPod Touch you see that consumers are going to become spoiled quickly and expect their "paid for" content to be available across multiple devices.
I can not read the collective minds of Apple but the potential is there for a fast machine. Especially if those machines adopt XEON processors. The low end could end up pathetically slow if the processors are not allowed to crank up the clock.
A perfect example: the 17" MacBook Pro I have at work.
Load something processor intensive like one of those distributed computing things. Run the benchmark tool to see how fast it is. Confirm this number by running it for 1 minute.
Then turn it on and let it run for 10 minutes. Watch your processor temperature go through the roof and the performance drop 40%.
Without adequate cooling it doesn't matter what Apple puts under the hood because after a few minutes it'll be throttling itself to keep from overheating.
I'm still going to wait and see what Apple has up its sleeve, but I can hear a Lynnfield based hackintosh calling my name.
The Mac marketshare is on the verge of rising past 10%. They now have 9.4% in the US. While Apple?s marketshare can?t possibly match HP?s 25% as long they sell machines with an average selling price of $1,500, compared to that of non-Mac PC at $800 (and likely lower if you count netbooks), you are comparing disparate things since I know you are looking at the OS not the OEM sales. There are very different business models that will keep Apple from ever having the OS marketshare that MS has. Plain and simple.
try including outside the USA as well, their market share drops a lot then.
But it is the same argument has most of your make as to why blu-ray isn't high, you claim DVD and iTunes (pretends to be) HD downloads are good enough, if that is the case, why aren't you all running machines other than Macs, because at the end of the day, they are all good enough.
One possible hang up that I haven't seen mentioned (apologies if I missed it) is regional encoding and whether that has to be also integrated in the OS. The regional encoding of BR is far more strict than DVD ? and also, for someone like me who does not live in the U.S., incredibly annoying. The strict encoding does not affect all BR's of course, only about 25%, but that includes all of the Criterion Collection movies that I most want.
(Anyone who has not seen Black Narcissus on BR has not experienced one of the best 90 minutes that movies can offer.)
What do you mean "far more strict than DVD", there are three regions in blu-ray, eight in DVD, has is three more restrictive than eight?
try including outside the USA as well, their market share drops a lot then.
But it is the same argument has most of your make as to why blu-ray isn't high, you claim DVD and iTunes (pretends to be) HD downloads are good enough, if that is the case, why aren't you all running machines other than Macs, because at the end of the day, they are all good enough.
That is because you fail to see that Windows or a $400 PC is not "good enough" for all of us. Just as there are some of you that want Blu-ray for backup on your PC, you have that option with certain caveats, just as us nasty Mac users has certain caveats if we want to use certain HW and SW. You keep failing into your OCD where it has to be all or nothing, but what you war is not necessarily what anyone else wants and may not be a good business move for a company.
You need to learn to see things fom that perspective. I don't care if Apple makes Blu-Ray a BTO option or not. I don't think will add them due tontge cost of the 9.5mm drives, there push or digital media via iTunes and constantly trying to make their machines smaller, but that is just a theory. I certainly won't get a BRD in a Mac and would prefer optical drives go away from their notebooks completely in favour of a larger battery and a 2nd HDD, but I don't I'll get my wish. I certainly won't take it personally and scream "Apple is teh doomed" when
it doesn't happen. It's not about you or me; a company should do wht they think is best for their bottom line.
A perfect example: the 17" MacBook Pro I have at work.
Load something processor intensive like one of those distributed computing things. Run the benchmark tool to see how fast it is. Confirm this number by running it for 1 minute.
Then turn it on and let it run for 10 minutes. Watch your processor temperature go through the roof and the performance drop 40%.
This is a huge problem on Macs and has me concerned about the coming iMacs. If they can't shift to Turbo Boost mode then the lower clocked models will suffer. Combine Apples usual hot machines with rumored thinner models and you have a combo that could lead to worst performance on average than todays models.
That is why I'm hoping the reports about thinner iMacs are an error. Either that or Apple has become far more proactive in heat removal. IMac is a lot of money and the last thing you want is performance regressions due to thermal issues.
At least on my MBP I'm giving up some of that performance for portability. An iMac should be able to harvest all the CPU cycles available.
Without adequate cooling it doesn't matter what Apple puts under the hood because after a few minutes it'll be throttling itself to keep from overheating.
Exactly. Even more important is that we could see thermal throttling in the GPUs too. I'm really hoping for some ethical benchmarking of these new machines so that people can buy well informed.
By ethical I mean a real system in a real office like environment. Not like Intel does with open boards sitting under an air conditioner duct.
Now given all that concern I have high hopes iMac won't be that bad. Even if it is less than ideal the next rev ought to get 32nm chips which hopefully further address the heating issues.
I'm still going to wait and see what Apple has up its sleeve, but I can hear a Lynnfield based hackintosh calling my name.
Personally I have to resist the urge to buy. To many other things pulling at the wallet. Besides I really want an iMac that is hopefully designed not to have these issues. However a heavily refactored iMac could change my mind. If the difference is as dramatic as the differences between my early 2008 MBP and todays model I might be interested. That is a total over haul of the iMac but it is past due anyways.
Dave
Core i7 920XM (2GHz Clarksfield) runs at 3.2GHz when only one core is active and at 2.8GHz when only 2 cores are active. For any single-threaded application, Core i7 920XM should give you much better performance than a Core-2 running at 3.06GHz.
When running multiple applications, or running an application that can take advantage of parallel processing (e.g. video encoding), 920XM with four cores / eight threads should provide significantly better throughput than a Core2 Duo even if each core/thread runs only at 2GHz on the 920XM.
Don't forget the prices of these mobile hyperthreaded processors....
i7 720QM (1.6GHz/2.8GHz with TurboBurst) -- $364 each per thousand
i7 820QM (1.73GHz/3.066GHz with TurboBurst)-- $546 each per thousand
i7 920XM (2.0GHz/3.2GHz with TurboBurst) -- $1054 each per thousand
The first two processors have a maximum thermal design point of 45W, while the last one is 55W.
I'm sure anyone wanting an upgraded processor is still going to pay a premium over cost for these mobile processors, as I have seen elsewhere:
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...&~lt=alienware
In comparison, these faster desktop CPUs are at a lower price point, but have a higher TDP:
i5 750 (2.66GHz/3.2GHz with TurboBurst) -- $196 each per thousand -- 95W TDP
i7 860 (2.8GHz/3.46GHz with TurboBurst and is hyperthreaded) -- $284 each per thousand -- 95W TDP
The i5 750 is not hyperthreaded, but still probably outperforms the i7 920XM in most tasks at about a fifth of the cost.
What isn't Apple seeing in this? Besides wanting to deliver a low power consuming 'Green Machine' at the consumer's expense.
Perhaps not enough of a profit margin....
Sadly, I'm not having much hope in Apple using the i5 750 or the i7 860. I'm still debating whether I should just buy a cheap Windows 7 laptop and wait until the next iMac rollout (circa May 2010) or just build a far more cost effective Windows 7 machine.
I'm sure I'd still be disappointed in the components of the May 2010 iMac....
Each year it is becoming clearer and clearer why they killed the clone program. Nobody would buy their limited overpriced hardware selection!
That is because you fail to see that Windows or a $400 PC is not "good enough" for all of us. Just as there are some of you that want Blu-ray for backup on your PC, you have that option with certain caveats, just as us nasty Mac users has certain caveats if we want to use certain HW and SW. You keep failing into your OCD where it has to be all or nothing, but what you war is not necessarily what anyone else wants and may not be a good business move for a company.
I haven't failed to see anything (and don't call me nasty), I don't really care what device anyone purchases, I don't like the fact the decision is make for us, there isn't any think different anymore.
I'm not worried about blu-ray recording, I would like the option of blu-ray playback as I live in a country with poor internet infrastructure and data caps (20GB don't download you much movies, a lot of people here have 1 or 5GB caps). I also don't like the restictions that movie downloads lump you with (currently very high region coding and non interdevice operations)
Core i7 920XM (2GHz Clarksfield) runs at 3.2GHz when only one core is active and at 2.8GHz when only 2 cores are active. For any single-threaded application, Core i7 920XM should give you much better performance than a Core-2 running at 3.06GHz.
So long as the "real world performance" for single-threaded apps matches or best the current top of the line iMac, I will be happy. But seeing that the 2GHz version of the CPU spoken of in this article is priced rather high, Apple may not choose it. Hence we may end up with iMacs that are slower in "real world performance."
When running multiple applications, or running an application that can take advantage of parallel processing (e.g. video encoding), 920XM with four cores / eight threads should provide significantly better throughput than a Core2 Duo even if each core/thread runs only at 2GHz on the 920XM.
I have "multiple apps open" at the same time all the time, but I believe you are referring to "having multiple apps open and actively working hard on something" which is a different matter. I agree that there are cases where multiple CPUs gives a big boost, but there are many situations where a super-clocked single CPU will yield the best performance. But again, if these new CPUs can crank themselves up beyond 3GHz, then all may be well.
1.60 means nothing until bench marking is done. The low end could end up pathetically slow if the processors are not allowed to crank up the clock.
Exactly.
If the movie sucks, you can still enjoy the view!
HAHAHA. Well, OK, we have to have Blu-ray, then.
Thanks Rob!!
So... would Adobe Photoshop work well on a "better" iMac without killing everything (and itself) when trying to switch brushes...? My PC from 2004 is currently doing that with PS 7.0...
If your PC is from 2004 you should see a considerable speed up on todays hardware.
A key consideration here is Photoshop which is not modern software. Unfortunately PS ability to leverage modern software and hardware is very limited. So what I'm saying is that when you buy a new Mac you will need to budget for a PS upgrade. An upgrade that we would hope can and will take advantage of multiple cores and OpenCL.
And would I be able to play WoW, Civ IV and Sims 3?
Depending on the game, they can be very dependant upon the GPU. Since I'm not a gamer the only thing I can offer is that GPU cards are a lot better than what you would get from 2004.
In any event you are in the same boat as the rest of us. That is waiting for Apple to deliver new hardware. Nowthis might not go over well but if you are in a hurry for a game and PS machine you will get a lot more with a PC running Windows. Especially considering that PS is way ahead on Windows.
Dave
First, Blue Ray disks are typically quite a bit more expensive then regular DVDs. Second, although the price of players are coming down, a $200 Blue Ray player doesn't satisfy the same quality level that a $50 DVD player does. The cheap Blue Ray players are made from low quality parts. You get what you pay for. Third, Apple doesn't want to put Blue Ray players on a Mac because Sony's license requires the OS and hardware to be locked down to prevent any possibility of the ripping of Blue Rays movies. This effects the quality of hardware performance even when the disks aren't being used. In other words, the putting a Blue Ray drive in a Mac will lower all Mac Blue Ray equipped Macs performance as the processors will be more taxed to comply with all the DRM requirements imposed by Sony. The Blue Screen of death will become far more common. Fourth, I legally rip movies all the time. For instance, all my DVDs are copied to a server so I can access them from a central location. Blue Ray prevents this.
Although slightly old, this link explains the reasons consumers should dislike Blue Ray. Don't buy the hype. Blue Ray really is a bag of hurt.
http://www.savedpennies.com/?p=112
For the home entertainment system, Blu-ray is great. A Blu-ray appliance and a huge ass HDTV make a perfect combo. Having a Blu-ray player on Apple?s most popular Mac, their notebooks, is pointless for all but those that jerk it to tech specs.
Note that even CEO of Netflix stated that within 2 years digital streaming will beat out optical media in their business.
I think that is a little optimistic as the infrastructure in the US is no where near able to support the speed need to make that practical especially as both DSL and Cable have caps as low as 3 Mbps. In some areas due to phone line issues DSL is limited to a maximum of 1.5 Mbps. You need a more uniform and higher throughput than that to make digital streaming real practical.
There is no reason why a machine should be without a current tech burner. BR actually has nothing to is with it. It's simply current tech. Video will always increase in size. It will never decrease. After BR there will be another format requiring more space. This means BR now and it means another format in the future.
In the past DVD burners were not a Mac Pro first option so why should a BR burner be in the Pro machines only. Why am I not able to simply swap my HD, battery or BR burner in a drive bay in 2010?
It's true that no format is fail safe for data but optical is the safest format. I recently consolidated my books of DVD data backups from 2005 and filled up my new 1TB HD. The discs were still readable even with scratches by a Mac several generations newer.
Those of you who are saying you do all of your backups etc online are on crack or you must have backups measured in MB's. Ever try uploading GB or TB backups to MobileMe or other service? Painfully slow. For anything over MM's 20GB it's unrealistic really and I gather that's why it's set at 20GB. Didn't you catch the latest memo regarding the biggest cloud failure in history? Yeah, have fun relying on "the cloud". For now optical is the way to go for serious backups. [Or multiple redundant raids that none of us will have].
Btw, BR media is quite cheap when you consider that 10 DVD5's fit on one BR DL disc. But heck if it's just data backups we're talking about [because I too have no need to watch BR on my computer], then just throw everything away and release $100.00 1TB SD cards so we can easily backup data. There's would be no need for HD's, the cloud or optical media if we had cheap 1TB SD cards.
.
Apple has and will continue to cut off our access to ANY form of 21st century media technologies, BluRay, CableCARD, etc (ones not invented at Apple anyway). This shouldn't come as any shock looking how they have managed the App Store applications is it any wonder that Apple feels they can get away with just about anything at this point?
As long as those "21st century media technologies, BluRay, CableCARD, etc" are available elsewhere, as they are, Apple is not cutting off your access. Try for more rational thoughts, less drama, ok?