Avid Media Composer 5.5? Mojo SDI? Pro Tools + Eleven Rack? Sibelius 7? Torq 2.0?
Technically DIgidesign is the producer of Eleven Rack, not Avid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macs2InfinityAndBeyond
Detachable batteries would benefit from the advancements in battery life technologies just the same – and, most importantly, would be THINNER!
Detachable batteries are certainly not thinner than the integrated batteries found in Apple products. You have more casing involved and space lost to make them into big rectangles, space which Apple uses for more battery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tailpipe
Ivy Bridge = more power, better GPU, lower TDP, and longer battery life.
According to Intel, Ivy Bridge is supposed to be about 20% faster CPU and 60% faster GPU, plus the GPU is being bumped from DX10 to DX11 support. Games like World of Warcraft got a 30% bump in performance after they coded DX11 benefits into the game. The TDP of the new chips is much lower and there is talk that w/the variable TDP of the chips, we'll see things like (for example) a 35W capable processor that runs at 15W until it is plugged into a docking unit, which has better cooling options and more power. Heck, even if the processor throttled up when it was plugged in vs when unplugged would be interesting.
You not being able to think of one or refusing to accept one doesn't mean there isn't.
As a BTO option?
Choice?
Giving buyers the self-determination to decide for themselves? Freedom?
Don't want an integrated optical drive? Order a Mac without one. How is that wrong?
But, again, the systematic elimination of integrated optical drives in Macs is a subset of an overarching goal: to kill the physical, optical media format – whether you like it or not.
In the Mac's future (besides running iOS on the ARM architecture that the Newton used in 1987, but has vastly improved over the decades a la i386, and not being called "Macs"), is no optical support. Providing optical support will violate the terms of the SDK.
So much for 50+GB Blu-ray burners, HVD, DVD5, 50TB Protein Coated optical discs (+Thunderbolt, internal or external...)
The aim is all wireless, all-digital software and content acquisition — via the iTunes Store only, of course.
But, again, the systematic elimination of integrated optical drives in Macs is a subset of an overarching goal: to kill the physical, optical media format – whether you like it or not.
Exactly. Anyone who 'likes' optical media doesn't understand the horrible downsides it presents, physically, operationally, and monetarily.
Quote:
So much for 50+GB Blu-ray burners, HVD, DVD5, 50TB Protein Coated optical discs
Oh, yes. I want 50 terabytes that can be completely and utterly ruined with one scratch on a disc which takes an inexcusable amount of time to access any sector. Sounds great.
You can buy an optical drive if you really want one. There's nothing stopping you from doing that.
No optical drive on my iMac would be a deal killer for me (I'd hold onto my 2010 for a long time). No optical drive on a MacBook? Great. Save the weight and gimme room. I don't see the optical drive leaving the iMac anytime soon- they aren't hurting for space- particularly @ 27".
They removed it from the mini already. I think they've been feeling people out here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Exactly. Anyone who 'likes' optical media doesn't understand the horrible downsides it presents, physically, operationally, and monetarily.
I don't care what the form is, but I would like to see some kind of approachable archival grade media today beyond just hard drives. Even with backups they make me nervous.
Exactly. Anyone who 'likes' optical media doesn't understand the horrible downsides it presents, physically, operationally, and monetarily.
I conclude you've never used it.
Oh, and "Anyone"? The planet is approaching a population of 7 billion. You really need to brush up on The Scientific Method and its admonishment of absolutism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Oh, yes. I want 50 terabytes that can be completely and utterly ruined with one scratch on a disc which takes an inexcusable amount of time to access any sector. Sounds great.
You're right; my bad; entrust your archives to The Cloud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Oh, yes. I want 50 terabytes that can be completely and utterly ruined with one scratch on a disc which takes an inexcusable amount of time to access any sector. Sounds great.
Or just take care of them. I don't have a single optical disc that is unreadable. I just make sure that they are either 1.) in my Mac or other device, or 2.) in a double-sided plastic sleeve with microfiber cloth in-between. In one of those two states only. No exceptions.
Or burn a second "insurance" copy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
...which takes an inexcusable amount of time to access any sector. Sounds great.
Huh? Volume access speeds will sit at a technological standstill? Thunderbolt won't get faster over time?
Years ago, Intel did a demonstration of Thunderbolt on a modified Mac Pro. They transferred the entire contents of a Blu-ray movie disc in 30 seconds.
And are you against terabytes? Hope not, because you're gonna hate petabytes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You can buy an optical drive if you really want one. There's nothing stopping you from doing that.
Oh, but I fear being complicit in perpetuating a format Apple is trying to kill.
I fully agree with Jobs opinion that the future of the macbook is the air form factor. I've been criticized for saying this, mainly by MBP owners who can't stand the future is thinner than their machine. But start to get used to it, because that's the future. And no, you won't lose performance, you'll have better performance, with a lightweight thin design, because that's what people wants, even if you're in love with heavy laptops. The only thing you'll lose is the uncomfortable weight which turns laptops into "half-desktop" machines.
So don't be sad... your next laptop will be extremely light, while really powerful. That's very good news to me, and I don't understand the criticism about this.
Huh? Volume access speeds will sit at a technological standstill? Thunderbolt won't get faster over time?
Thunderbolt is an interconnect, not a storage technology.
Quote:
Years ago, Intel did a demonstration of Thunderbolt on a modified Mac Pro. They transferred the entire contents of a Blu-ray movie disc in 30 seconds.
Wow. That's impressive. Care to point to the Blu-ray drive they used that can output that kind of data that fast? Oh, wait. What you actually meant to say was, "they transferred an amount of data equivalent to the contents of an entire Blu-ray disc in thirty seconds." Try to spot the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs
I fully agree with Jobs opinion that the future of the macbook is the air form factor. I've been criticized for saying this, mainly by MBP owners who can't stand the future is thinner than their machine. But start to get used to it, because that's the future. And no, you won't lose performance, you'll have better performance, with a lightweight thin design, because that's what people wants, even if you're in love with heavy laptops. The only thing you'll lose is the uncomfortable weight which turns laptops into "half-desktop" machines.
So don't be sad... your next laptop will be extremely light, while really powerful. That's very good news to me, and I don't understand the criticism about this.
The current crop of ultra-thin laptops (MacBook Air) cuts corners to achieve thinness. There is still a need for full-feature laptops at the professional level. Plentiful storage (HDD) andFireWire (at least until Thunderbolt-to FireWire solutions actually ship; video and audio professionals need FireWire). MacBook Pro's will get thinner, but for now, the Airs cannot replace them.
I fully agree with Jobs opinion that the future of the macbook is the air form factor. I've been criticized for saying this, mainly by MBP owners who can't stand the future is thinner than their machine. But start to get used to it, because that's the future. And no, you won't lose performance, you'll have better performance, with a lightweight thin design, because that's what people wants, even if you're in love with heavy laptops. The only thing you'll lose is the uncomfortable weight which turns laptops into "half-desktop" machines.
So don't be sad... your next laptop will be extremely light, while really powerful. That's very good news to me, and I don't understand the criticism about this.
If intel hits their targets you may see the pros go to thinned down form factors in 2013 seeing as the goal was 17W cpus by that time. If they do go this route discreet graphics will be highly unlikely. I hope they ditch the wedge concept in a thinned out macbook pro. To me more ports would be preferable. You can never be sure with Apple. Several wireless standards have been proposed for wireless usb/displayport standards. I don't know if/when we'll see something like that in actual products. SSD sizes really need to increase for these to be practical drives for primary computers. The cloud isn't the answer to everything with bandwidth constraints.
If intel hits their targets you may see the pros go to thinned down form factors in 2013 seeing as the goal was 17W cpus by that time. If they do go this route discreet graphics will be highly unlikely. I hope they ditch the wedge concept in a thinned out macbook pro. To me more ports would be preferable. You can never be sure with Apple. Several wireless standards have been proposed for wireless usb/displayport standards. I don't know if/when we'll see something like that in actual products. SSD sizes really need to increase for these to be practical drives for primary computers. The cloud isn't the answer to everything with bandwidth constraints.
I've an iMac, but my late-2010 MBA (13'', 4GB RAM, 256GB SSD) has become my primary computer. I'm now doing big drawings with AutoCAD 2011 (last update applied) and it's as responsive as my 2010 iMac (or even better). Also, the 256GB SSD it came with is very adequate for me: I admit I couldn't work with a 128GB SSD, and also I'd prefer a 512GB one, but the 256GB is big enough for use in a primary computer.
My OpenGL apps also work very sweet with this NVIDIA GPU (it's integrated, however, but runs fine).
Sure, a quad-core would be more powerful, but if I can use a late-2010 MBA for primary use, I'm very sure that the hypothetical 15'' thin macbook in this rumor can be an awesome machine for whatever task you use your MBP.
I fully agree with Jobs opinion that the future of the macbook is the air form factor. I've been criticized for saying this, mainly by MBP owners who can't stand the future is thinner than their machine.
The MBP is not a Mac Book.
As to being criticized I'm not sure what you mean as I've not seen many of your posts. In any event you have pulled out the wrong issue here, MBP owners are concerned about the possible loss in performance versus what could be. Further they are concerned about expansion capability and maintainability. Ship a 15" AIR without the ability to up RAM or access the storage modules and people will be perturbed.
Quote:
But start to get used to it, because that's the future. And no, you won't lose performance, you'll have better performance,
You will most certainly lose performance. Not against old hardware but rather against what is possible with a given state of the art at anyone time. The simple fact is that a higher wattage chip will generally run faster compared to other family members.
Quote:
with a lightweight thin design, because that's what people wants, even if you're in love with heavy laptops. The only thing you'll lose is the uncomfortable weight which turns laptops into "half-desktop" machines.
You aren't one of those 99 lb weaklings from Europe, are you? People carry around what is required to get the job done. Lighter is always nice but not at the expense of performance.
Quote:
So don't be sad... your next laptop will be extremely light, while really powerful. That's very good news to me, and I don't understand the criticism about this.
Mainly because you don't seem to understand what you are talking about. Just about every recent generation of processors from Intel have gotten cooler. That part you seem to grasp, what you fail to realize is that higher wattage processors do give you better performance over lower wattage parts. It is all about clock rate.
Funny, could have sworn that was what the MB in MBP stood for
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
You will most certainly lose performance. Not against old hardware but rather against what is possible with a given state of the art at anyone time. The simple fact is that a higher wattage chip will generally run faster compared to other family members.
Unless the TDP for all Intel mobile chips becomes lower, which is the plan. More power and longer battery life are going hand in hand and we'll all be better for it. Within the next couple of generations, it won't be teh case that the thinner systems are using lower TDP processors, all the processors will be at that lower TDP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
You aren't one of those 99 lb weaklings from Europe, are you? People carry around what is required to get the job done. Lighter is always nice but not at the expense of performance.
Weak people only live in Europe? Who knew? I think the people who complain about a 3 lb laptop instead of a 2 lb laptop are really big whiners tho, so I'm not disputing the basic point.
You will most certainly lose performance. Not against old hardware but rather against what is possible with a given state of the art at anyone time. The simple fact is that a higher wattage chip will generally run faster compared to other family members.
Their targets are to get high performance from low wattage. Also saying performance depends on the wattage alone is completely batty. i5 and i7 CPUs are the same wattage yet the i7 performs better. Funny how that works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
You aren't one of those 99 lb weaklings from Europe, are you?
So tempted to pull the "All dem yanks be fat!" card... oh so tempted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
People carry around what is required to get the job done. Lighter is always nice but not at the expense of performance.
Really? My dad has a HP ProBook. Its very heavy and very big. My slimmer and lighter MacBook Pro out-performs it. Funny how that works.
Also, the Intel Atom is a low Wattage processor (typically) at 1.6GHz. The ARM CPUs in portable devices like the iPad and Smart Phones run at much lower clock rates (1.0GHz) and much lower wattage, yet they appear to out-perform the Atom, or are at least on par with it. Funny how that works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Mainly because you don't seem to understand what you are talking about.
And you do? Could've fooled me...
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Just about every recent generation of processors from Intel have gotten cooler. That part you seem to grasp, what you fail to realize is that higher wattage processors do give you better performance over lower wattage parts. It is all about clock rate.
Firstly, I refer you back to my Atom v ARM statement.
Secondly, All about clock rate? You have NO idea how a processor works if you base it all on clock rate. By that logic the 2.0GHz Quad i7 in my MBP should be slower in single thread operations than the Single Core AMD V-140 in my Compaq CQ56. Strangely enough, its not! Funny how that works. You also contradict yourself; first by saying higher wattage leads to higher performance, then suddenly claiming its all about clock rate that is independent of the wattage. So which is it, then?
A Processor's ability to process data is based on the number of transistors, architecture (sandy-bridge, K10 etc.), cache, on-chip features, instruction-set features (eg: SSE4) and so on. The raw clock rate hasn't been a significant factor in determining processor performance since the 90s - it all depends on how many calculations the processor can perform per clock cycle.
A fantastic example of this is the Emotion Engine (EE) CPU in the Playstation 2. The EE was only clocked at 294~299Mhz, yet it out performed the original xbox's 700MHz CPU. Why? The xbox used a scalar processor (Single Instruction, Single Data) where the EE was a Superscalar CPU (Multiple Instructions, Multiple Data) with an on die Vector Processing Unit to operate on several data items in one clock cycle, rather than a single operation per cycle like in "traditional" CPUs. (on a side note, why don't intel get off their backsides and make a true Vector Processor? The performance would be astronomical!)
Well, mine ramp up too (sorry if I wasn't clear on that). When I first got the laptop, I was installing Toast 11 and it did something similar with the CPU usage and next thing I know, the fans are whirring away at 6000+ RPM. Otherwise, it'll take a video encode to make them go crazy like that. Thanks for the feedback BTW.
Have you installed the SMC update? If so maybe reset the SMC on next startup.
You're right; my bad; entrust your archives to The Cloud.
Oh, heaven's no. I wouldn't even do that yet. I don't particularly like cloud computing for anything but device content parity.
Quote:
I just make sure that they are either 1.) in my Mac or other device, or 2.) in a double-sided plastic sleeve with microfiber cloth in-between. In one of those two states only. No exceptions.
*applause* You're better at taking care of discs than I am. I don't have anything unreadable either (nor do I have any disc that has died of "old age", despite some being a decade or more old), so good on you.
Quote:
Years ago, Intel did a demonstration of Thunderbolt on a modified Mac Pro. They transferred the entire contents of a Blu-ray movie disc in 30 seconds.
Exactly. Movies will eventually be sold on Thunderbolt flash drives and plugged into TVs with Thunderbolt ports. They'll have the most draconian DRM the planet has ever seen, but their access times will be far superior to Blu-ray.
Quote:
And are you against terabytes? Hope not, because you're gonna hate petabytes.
I'm just against putting so MUCH information in such a fragile package.
Really? My dad has a HP ProBook. Its very heavy and very big. My slimmer and lighter MacBook Pro out-performs it. Funny how that works.
Also, the Intel Atom is a low Wattage processor (typically) at 1.6GHz. The ARM CPUs in portable devices like the iPad and Smart Phones run at much lower clock rates (1.0GHz) and much lower wattage, yet they appear to out-perform the Atom, or are at least on par with it. Funny how that works.
That comparison lacks a lot of context. Were they similar hardware generations and builds (ram, HD, etc), and did you have a real basis of comparison? There's no way of knowing what you were running or anything. Windows actually does offer superior performance in certain things. My biggest complaint with most laptops remains that they run too hot if pushed for performance.
Intel already announced their plans for the Atom. I wouldn't call it a foregone conclusion just yet.
Oh, heaven's no. I wouldn't even do that yet. I don't particularly like cloud computing for anything but device content parity.
I'm just against putting so MUCH information in such a fragile package.
So, answer-boy, just what is your solution for archiving large amounts of data, accessed too infrequently to encumber and slow down your HDD or SSD?
For a Professional Photographer with an 18 megapixel DSLR and countless RAW files (+ non-destruct originals) of (minumum) 10MB per photo, and who has terabytes of this data he needs to keep should a client ask for a print any time in the future, what's your answer for massive archival needs on a Mac?
(BTW, Hasselblad now has a 39 megapixel DSLR.)
I hope you answer is not an external HFS+ volume. HFS+ is downright suicidal, and DiskWarrior is manna from heaven.
Hell, I'm not even sure I'd trust a RAID 1+0 HFS+ volume. ( [Mac] OS X supports only RAID 0, 1 and 0+1, but not 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7.)
SSD long-term data integrity issues are presently a work-in-progress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Exactly. Movies will eventually be sold on Thunderbolt flash drives and plugged into TVs with Thunderbolt ports. They'll have the most draconian DRM the planet has ever seen, but their access times will be far superior to Blu-ray.
Nope. Physical is in the past; quit dwelling on the past. Movies will only exist as electronic downloads or streams from the iTunes Store. (BTW, how much would a Thunderbolt flash drive movie cost in comparison to a DVD? A 32GB USB Flash drive already costs more than some 500GB hard drives.)
I'm still waiting for some recommendations on the "any" graphics card you said I can plop into my Mac Pro, besides the 1GB Radeon HD 5770 or 5880 ? OH, snap! I forgot, there's also the $1,200 nVidia Quadro 4000 Mac Edition (which Apple doesn't provide OpenCL support for and which causes kernel panics more than once a day).
So, my credit card is in hand: recommend some of the "any" graphics cards you said I can use in my Mac Pro besides the aforementioned. I'm waaaaaiiiiiiting!
So, answer-boy, just what is your solution for archiving large amounts of data, accessed too infrequently to encumber and slow down your HDD or SSD?
For a Professional Photographer with an 18 megapixel DSLR and countless RAW files (+ non-destruct originals) of (minumum) 10MB per photo, and who has terabytes of this data he needs to keep should a client ask for a print any time in the future, what's your answer for massive archival needs on a Mac?
(BTW, Hasselblad now has a 39 megapixel DSLR.)
I hope you answer is not an external HFS+ volume. HFS+ is downright suicidal, and DiskWarrior is manna from heaven.
Hell, I'm not even sure I'd trust a RAID 1+0 HFS+ volume. ( [Mac] OS X supports only RAID 0, 1 and 0+1, but not 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7.)
SSD long-term data integrity issues are presently a work-in-progress.
HFS+ has always been F***ing garbage. I hate that stupid file system and its terrible directory issues so much, and I wouldn't even own a Mac without disk warrior. I really wish they had an alternative to that ancient piece of crap. It's the one thing I hate more in OSX than the registry in Windows.
What do you mean "now" has a 39 MP DSLR? Digital backs like the Phase One have been out in that resolution since 2006 2007? The newest is an 80MP back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macs2InfinityAndBeyond
I'm still waiting for some recommendations on the "any" graphics card you said I can plop into my Mac Pro, besides the 1GB Radeon HD 5770 or 5880 ? OH, snap! I forgot, there's also the $1,200 nVidia Quadro 4000 Mac Edition (which Apple doesn't provide OpenCL support for and which causes kernel panics more than once a day).
So, my credit card is in hand: recommend some of the "any" graphics cards you said I can use in my Mac Pro besides the aforementioned. I'm waaaaaiiiiiiting!
Yeah Apple sucks on gpus. I thought the Quadro 4000 Mac Edition was cheaper now, but they don't even have plans for 10 bit RGB out driver support. Apple is a consumer brand now. We'll all get used to it eventually. If you're a photographer, the only real advantage from a workstation grade GPU you're going to get in Photoshop or capture programs would be 10 bit video out assuming a compatible display. You really don't gain anything else from workstation gpus. They matter more for CAD, 3d modeling, etc. Photoshop is 95% cpu power. The OpenGL drawing functions don't stress a card out that much.
Exactly. Movies will eventually be sold on Thunderbolt flash drives and plugged into TVs with Thunderbolt ports. They'll have the most draconian DRM the planet has ever seen, but their access times will be far superior to Blu-ray.
You are trolling right? It doesn't actually make any sense for the proposed use.
HFS+ has always been F***ing garbage. I hate that stupid file system and its terrible directory issues so much, and I wouldn't even own a Mac without disk warrior. I really wish they had an alternative to that ancient piece of crap. It's the one thing I hate more in OSX than the registry in Windows.
Unfortunately, indications point to a lack of motivation or committment to improve "non-user-facing" changes to [Mac] OS X. If we're lucky, more chewing gum and Band-Aids to HFS+, at the most. I just don't think Apple CARES, unless it's "iOSifying" [Mac] OS X.
I think Lion, ironically the biggest of the big cats, may be the end-of-the-road. 10.7.9 is probably they extent of what we can hope for.
It's a shame about ZFS. In a prioritized list of file systems, it was like:
1. ZFS – 128-bit file system, maximum file size: 16 exabytes; maximum size of any volume: 16 exabytes; maximum size of any attribute: 16 exabytes; size of a maximized ZFS file system: 256 quadrillion exabytes.
"The limitations of ZFS are designed to be so large that they would never be encountered. This was assured by surpassing physical rather than theoretical limitations—there simply is not enough usable matter on the planet Earth to support a maximized ZFS filesystem." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS.)
2. N/A
3. N/A
4. Btrfs – ZFS "pretender," but falls far short.
5. N/A
6. N/A
7. N/A
8. ReiserFS (but since its creator, Hans Reiser, murdered his wife and is serving 15 to life in prison, relying on this file system might not be a good idea for technical reasons and PR reasons).
9. N/A
10. N/A
11. N/A
12. ext4 – a FAR cry from all the aforementioned, but is used by many current Unixes and Linuxes, and Google recently opted to drop their proprietary FS and go with ext. If ZFS and Btrfs are simply impossibilities for [Mac] OS X, at least Apple would be using a more standardized FS. IDK, but it could allow Unix apps to run on [Mac] OS X more easily or be more easily ported. File exchange or transfer standardization could benefit [Mac] OS X. And, without turning it proprietary, I wonder if Apple could create XSan and Xgrid "extensions" for it that would not break compatibility. And would only be available to Mac users!
But, the fewer number of different file systems, the better. We can count on Microsoft not to change, but if Unixes, Linuxes, Google OSes and [Mac] OS X all used the same file system, I think it would be Good Thing™.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
What do you mean "now" has a 39 MP DSLR? Digital backs like the Phase One have been out in that resolution since 2006 2007? The newest is an 80MP back.
I-DID-NOT-KNOW-THAT. Fortifies my point by 200%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Yeah Apple sucks on gpus. I thought the Quadro 4000 Mac Edition was cheaper now, but they don't even have plans for 10 bit RGB out driver support. Apple is a consumer brand now. We'll all get used to it eventually. If you're a photographer, the only real advantage from a workstation grade GPU you're going to get in Photoshop or capture programs would be 10 bit video out assuming a compatible display. You really don't gain anything else from workstation gpus. They matter more for CAD, 3d modeling, etc. Photoshop is 95% cpu power. The OpenGL drawing functions don't stress a card out that much.
Spot on. Can't add much more to that except this article. It is pertinent in its entirety, but the section that reads, The Problem of Apple, is particularly relevant – and they weren't even talking about the extremely limited number of different cards Apple supports!
Comments
Avid Media Composer 5.5? Mojo SDI? Pro Tools + Eleven Rack? Sibelius 7? Torq 2.0?
Technically DIgidesign is the producer of Eleven Rack, not Avid.
Detachable batteries would benefit from the advancements in battery life technologies just the same – and, most importantly, would be THINNER!
Detachable batteries are certainly not thinner than the integrated batteries found in Apple products. You have more casing involved and space lost to make them into big rectangles, space which Apple uses for more battery.
Ivy Bridge = more power, better GPU, lower TDP, and longer battery life.
According to Intel, Ivy Bridge is supposed to be about 20% faster CPU and 60% faster GPU, plus the GPU is being bumped from DX10 to DX11 support. Games like World of Warcraft got a 30% bump in performance after they coded DX11 benefits into the game. The TDP of the new chips is much lower and there is talk that w/the variable TDP of the chips, we'll see things like (for example) a 35W capable processor that runs at 15W until it is plugged into a docking unit, which has better cooling options and more power. Heck, even if the processor throttled up when it was plugged in vs when unplugged would be interesting.
You not being able to think of one or refusing to accept one doesn't mean there isn't.
As a BTO option?
Choice?
Giving buyers the self-determination to decide for themselves? Freedom?
Don't want an integrated optical drive? Order a Mac without one. How is that wrong?
But, again, the systematic elimination of integrated optical drives in Macs is a subset of an overarching goal: to kill the physical, optical media format – whether you like it or not.
In the Mac's future (besides running iOS on the ARM architecture that the Newton used in 1987, but has vastly improved over the decades a la i386, and not being called "Macs"), is no optical support. Providing optical support will violate the terms of the SDK.
So much for 50+GB Blu-ray burners, HVD, DVD5, 50TB Protein Coated optical discs (+Thunderbolt, internal or external...)
The aim is all wireless, all-digital software and content acquisition — via the iTunes Store only, of course.
But, again, the systematic elimination of integrated optical drives in Macs is a subset of an overarching goal: to kill the physical, optical media format – whether you like it or not.
Exactly. Anyone who 'likes' optical media doesn't understand the horrible downsides it presents, physically, operationally, and monetarily.
So much for 50+GB Blu-ray burners, HVD, DVD5, 50TB Protein Coated optical discs
Oh, yes. I want 50 terabytes that can be completely and utterly ruined with one scratch on a disc which takes an inexcusable amount of time to access any sector. Sounds great.
You can buy an optical drive if you really want one. There's nothing stopping you from doing that.
No optical drive on my iMac would be a deal killer for me (I'd hold onto my 2010 for a long time). No optical drive on a MacBook? Great. Save the weight and gimme room. I don't see the optical drive leaving the iMac anytime soon- they aren't hurting for space- particularly @ 27".
They removed it from the mini already. I think they've been feeling people out here.
Exactly. Anyone who 'likes' optical media doesn't understand the horrible downsides it presents, physically, operationally, and monetarily.
I don't care what the form is, but I would like to see some kind of approachable archival grade media today beyond just hard drives. Even with backups they make me nervous.
Exactly. Anyone who 'likes' optical media doesn't understand the horrible downsides it presents, physically, operationally, and monetarily.
I conclude you've never used it.
Oh, and "Anyone"? The planet is approaching a population of 7 billion. You really need to brush up on The Scientific Method and its admonishment of absolutism.
Oh, yes. I want 50 terabytes that can be completely and utterly ruined with one scratch on a disc which takes an inexcusable amount of time to access any sector. Sounds great.
You're right; my bad; entrust your archives to The Cloud.
Oh, yes. I want 50 terabytes that can be completely and utterly ruined with one scratch on a disc which takes an inexcusable amount of time to access any sector. Sounds great.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/19/t...blu-ray-discs/
Or just take care of them. I don't have a single optical disc that is unreadable. I just make sure that they are either 1.) in my Mac or other device, or 2.) in a double-sided plastic sleeve with microfiber cloth in-between. In one of those two states only. No exceptions.
Or burn a second "insurance" copy.
...which takes an inexcusable amount of time to access any sector. Sounds great.
Huh? Volume access speeds will sit at a technological standstill? Thunderbolt won't get faster over time?
Years ago, Intel did a demonstration of Thunderbolt on a modified Mac Pro. They transferred the entire contents of a Blu-ray movie disc in 30 seconds.
And are you against terabytes? Hope not, because you're gonna hate petabytes.
You can buy an optical drive if you really want one. There's nothing stopping you from doing that.
Oh, but I fear being complicit in perpetuating a format Apple is trying to kill.
I know; I'll ask Apple what to do. They'll know.
So don't be sad... your next laptop will be extremely light, while really powerful. That's very good news to me, and I don't understand the criticism about this.
Huh? Volume access speeds will sit at a technological standstill? Thunderbolt won't get faster over time?
Thunderbolt is an interconnect, not a storage technology.
Years ago, Intel did a demonstration of Thunderbolt on a modified Mac Pro. They transferred the entire contents of a Blu-ray movie disc in 30 seconds.
Wow. That's impressive. Care to point to the Blu-ray drive they used that can output that kind of data that fast? Oh, wait. What you actually meant to say was, "they transferred an amount of data equivalent to the contents of an entire Blu-ray disc in thirty seconds." Try to spot the difference.
I fully agree with Jobs opinion that the future of the macbook is the air form factor. I've been criticized for saying this, mainly by MBP owners who can't stand the future is thinner than their machine. But start to get used to it, because that's the future. And no, you won't lose performance, you'll have better performance, with a lightweight thin design, because that's what people wants, even if you're in love with heavy laptops. The only thing you'll lose is the uncomfortable weight which turns laptops into "half-desktop" machines.
So don't be sad... your next laptop will be extremely light, while really powerful. That's very good news to me, and I don't understand the criticism about this.
The current crop of ultra-thin laptops (MacBook Air) cuts corners to achieve thinness. There is still a need for full-feature laptops at the professional level. Plentiful storage (HDD) andFireWire (at least until Thunderbolt-to FireWire solutions actually ship; video and audio professionals need FireWire). MacBook Pro's will get thinner, but for now, the Airs cannot replace them.
.tsooJ
I fully agree with Jobs opinion that the future of the macbook is the air form factor. I've been criticized for saying this, mainly by MBP owners who can't stand the future is thinner than their machine. But start to get used to it, because that's the future. And no, you won't lose performance, you'll have better performance, with a lightweight thin design, because that's what people wants, even if you're in love with heavy laptops. The only thing you'll lose is the uncomfortable weight which turns laptops into "half-desktop" machines.
So don't be sad... your next laptop will be extremely light, while really powerful. That's very good news to me, and I don't understand the criticism about this.
If intel hits their targets you may see the pros go to thinned down form factors in 2013 seeing as the goal was 17W cpus by that time. If they do go this route discreet graphics will be highly unlikely. I hope they ditch the wedge concept in a thinned out macbook pro. To me more ports would be preferable. You can never be sure with Apple. Several wireless standards have been proposed for wireless usb/displayport standards. I don't know if/when we'll see something like that in actual products. SSD sizes really need to increase for these to be practical drives for primary computers. The cloud isn't the answer to everything with bandwidth constraints.
If intel hits their targets you may see the pros go to thinned down form factors in 2013 seeing as the goal was 17W cpus by that time. If they do go this route discreet graphics will be highly unlikely. I hope they ditch the wedge concept in a thinned out macbook pro. To me more ports would be preferable. You can never be sure with Apple. Several wireless standards have been proposed for wireless usb/displayport standards. I don't know if/when we'll see something like that in actual products. SSD sizes really need to increase for these to be practical drives for primary computers. The cloud isn't the answer to everything with bandwidth constraints.
I've an iMac, but my late-2010 MBA (13'', 4GB RAM, 256GB SSD) has become my primary computer. I'm now doing big drawings with AutoCAD 2011 (last update applied) and it's as responsive as my 2010 iMac (or even better). Also, the 256GB SSD it came with is very adequate for me: I admit I couldn't work with a 128GB SSD, and also I'd prefer a 512GB one, but the 256GB is big enough for use in a primary computer.
My OpenGL apps also work very sweet with this NVIDIA GPU (it's integrated, however, but runs fine).
Sure, a quad-core would be more powerful, but if I can use a late-2010 MBA for primary use, I'm very sure that the hypothetical 15'' thin macbook in this rumor can be an awesome machine for whatever task you use your MBP.
I fully agree with Jobs opinion that the future of the macbook is the air form factor. I've been criticized for saying this, mainly by MBP owners who can't stand the future is thinner than their machine.
The MBP is not a Mac Book.
As to being criticized I'm not sure what you mean as I've not seen many of your posts. In any event you have pulled out the wrong issue here, MBP owners are concerned about the possible loss in performance versus what could be. Further they are concerned about expansion capability and maintainability. Ship a 15" AIR without the ability to up RAM or access the storage modules and people will be perturbed.
But start to get used to it, because that's the future. And no, you won't lose performance, you'll have better performance,
You will most certainly lose performance. Not against old hardware but rather against what is possible with a given state of the art at anyone time. The simple fact is that a higher wattage chip will generally run faster compared to other family members.
with a lightweight thin design, because that's what people wants, even if you're in love with heavy laptops. The only thing you'll lose is the uncomfortable weight which turns laptops into "half-desktop" machines.
You aren't one of those 99 lb weaklings from Europe, are you? People carry around what is required to get the job done. Lighter is always nice but not at the expense of performance.
So don't be sad... your next laptop will be extremely light, while really powerful. That's very good news to me, and I don't understand the criticism about this.
Mainly because you don't seem to understand what you are talking about. Just about every recent generation of processors from Intel have gotten cooler. That part you seem to grasp, what you fail to realize is that higher wattage processors do give you better performance over lower wattage parts. It is all about clock rate.
a
The MBP is not a Mac Book.
Funny, could have sworn that was what the MB in MBP stood for
You will most certainly lose performance. Not against old hardware but rather against what is possible with a given state of the art at anyone time. The simple fact is that a higher wattage chip will generally run faster compared to other family members.
Unless the TDP for all Intel mobile chips becomes lower, which is the plan. More power and longer battery life are going hand in hand and we'll all be better for it. Within the next couple of generations, it won't be teh case that the thinner systems are using lower TDP processors, all the processors will be at that lower TDP.
You aren't one of those 99 lb weaklings from Europe, are you? People carry around what is required to get the job done. Lighter is always nice but not at the expense of performance.
Weak people only live in Europe? Who knew? I think the people who complain about a 3 lb laptop instead of a 2 lb laptop are really big whiners tho, so I'm not disputing the basic point.
The MBP is not a Mac Book.
MacBook Pro
You will most certainly lose performance. Not against old hardware but rather against what is possible with a given state of the art at anyone time. The simple fact is that a higher wattage chip will generally run faster compared to other family members.
Their targets are to get high performance from low wattage. Also saying performance depends on the wattage alone is completely batty. i5 and i7 CPUs are the same wattage yet the i7 performs better. Funny how that works.
You aren't one of those 99 lb weaklings from Europe, are you?
So tempted to pull the "All dem yanks be fat!" card... oh so tempted.
People carry around what is required to get the job done. Lighter is always nice but not at the expense of performance.
Really? My dad has a HP ProBook. Its very heavy and very big. My slimmer and lighter MacBook Pro out-performs it. Funny how that works.
Also, the Intel Atom is a low Wattage processor (typically) at 1.6GHz. The ARM CPUs in portable devices like the iPad and Smart Phones run at much lower clock rates (1.0GHz) and much lower wattage, yet they appear to out-perform the Atom, or are at least on par with it. Funny how that works.
Mainly because you don't seem to understand what you are talking about.
And you do? Could've fooled me...
Just about every recent generation of processors from Intel have gotten cooler. That part you seem to grasp, what you fail to realize is that higher wattage processors do give you better performance over lower wattage parts. It is all about clock rate.
Firstly, I refer you back to my Atom v ARM statement.
Secondly, All about clock rate? You have NO idea how a processor works if you base it all on clock rate. By that logic the 2.0GHz Quad i7 in my MBP should be slower in single thread operations than the Single Core AMD V-140 in my Compaq CQ56. Strangely enough, its not! Funny how that works. You also contradict yourself; first by saying higher wattage leads to higher performance, then suddenly claiming its all about clock rate that is independent of the wattage. So which is it, then?
A Processor's ability to process data is based on the number of transistors, architecture (sandy-bridge, K10 etc.), cache, on-chip features, instruction-set features (eg: SSE4) and so on. The raw clock rate hasn't been a significant factor in determining processor performance since the 90s - it all depends on how many calculations the processor can perform per clock cycle.
A fantastic example of this is the Emotion Engine (EE) CPU in the Playstation 2. The EE was only clocked at 294~299Mhz, yet it out performed the original xbox's 700MHz CPU. Why? The xbox used a scalar processor (Single Instruction, Single Data) where the EE was a Superscalar CPU (Multiple Instructions, Multiple Data) with an on die Vector Processing Unit to operate on several data items in one clock cycle, rather than a single operation per cycle like in "traditional" CPUs. (on a side note, why don't intel get off their backsides and make a true Vector Processor? The performance would be astronomical!)
I'm done. As you were
Well, mine ramp up too (sorry if I wasn't clear on that). When I first got the laptop, I was installing Toast 11 and it did something similar with the CPU usage and next thing I know, the fans are whirring away at 6000+ RPM. Otherwise, it'll take a video encode to make them go crazy like that. Thanks for the feedback BTW.
Have you installed the SMC update? If so maybe reset the SMC on next startup.
You're right; my bad; entrust your archives to The Cloud.
Oh, heaven's no. I wouldn't even do that yet. I don't particularly like cloud computing for anything but device content parity.
I just make sure that they are either 1.) in my Mac or other device, or 2.) in a double-sided plastic sleeve with microfiber cloth in-between. In one of those two states only. No exceptions.
Years ago, Intel did a demonstration of Thunderbolt on a modified Mac Pro. They transferred the entire contents of a Blu-ray movie disc in 30 seconds.
Exactly. Movies will eventually be sold on Thunderbolt flash drives and plugged into TVs with Thunderbolt ports. They'll have the most draconian DRM the planet has ever seen, but their access times will be far superior to Blu-ray.
And are you against terabytes? Hope not, because you're gonna hate petabytes.
I'm just against putting so MUCH information in such a fragile package.
Really? My dad has a HP ProBook. Its very heavy and very big. My slimmer and lighter MacBook Pro out-performs it. Funny how that works.
Also, the Intel Atom is a low Wattage processor (typically) at 1.6GHz. The ARM CPUs in portable devices like the iPad and Smart Phones run at much lower clock rates (1.0GHz) and much lower wattage, yet they appear to out-perform the Atom, or are at least on par with it. Funny how that works.
That comparison lacks a lot of context. Were they similar hardware generations and builds (ram, HD, etc), and did you have a real basis of comparison? There's no way of knowing what you were running or anything. Windows actually does offer superior performance in certain things. My biggest complaint with most laptops remains that they run too hot if pushed for performance.
Intel already announced their plans for the Atom. I wouldn't call it a foregone conclusion just yet.
Oh, heaven's no. I wouldn't even do that yet. I don't particularly like cloud computing for anything but device content parity.
I'm just against putting so MUCH information in such a fragile package.
So, answer-boy, just what is your solution for archiving large amounts of data, accessed too infrequently to encumber and slow down your HDD or SSD?
For a Professional Photographer with an 18 megapixel DSLR and countless RAW files (+ non-destruct originals) of (minumum) 10MB per photo, and who has terabytes of this data he needs to keep should a client ask for a print any time in the future, what's your answer for massive archival needs on a Mac?
(BTW, Hasselblad now has a 39 megapixel DSLR.)
I hope you answer is not an external HFS+ volume. HFS+ is downright suicidal, and DiskWarrior is manna from heaven.
Hell, I'm not even sure I'd trust a RAID 1+0 HFS+ volume. ( [Mac] OS X supports only RAID 0, 1 and 0+1, but not 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7.)
SSD long-term data integrity issues are presently a work-in-progress.
Exactly. Movies will eventually be sold on Thunderbolt flash drives and plugged into TVs with Thunderbolt ports. They'll have the most draconian DRM the planet has ever seen, but their access times will be far superior to Blu-ray.
Nope. Physical is in the past; quit dwelling on the past. Movies will only exist as electronic downloads or streams from the iTunes Store. (BTW, how much would a Thunderbolt flash drive movie cost in comparison to a DVD? A 32GB USB Flash drive already costs more than some 500GB hard drives.)
I'm still waiting for some recommendations on the "any" graphics card you said I can plop into my Mac Pro, besides the 1GB Radeon HD 5770 or 5880 ? OH, snap! I forgot, there's also the $1,200 nVidia Quadro 4000 Mac Edition (which Apple doesn't provide OpenCL support for and which causes kernel panics more than once a day).
So, my credit card is in hand: recommend some of the "any" graphics cards you said I can use in my Mac Pro besides the aforementioned. I'm waaaaaiiiiiiting!
So, answer-boy, just what is your solution for archiving large amounts of data, accessed too infrequently to encumber and slow down your HDD or SSD?
For a Professional Photographer with an 18 megapixel DSLR and countless RAW files (+ non-destruct originals) of (minumum) 10MB per photo, and who has terabytes of this data he needs to keep should a client ask for a print any time in the future, what's your answer for massive archival needs on a Mac?
(BTW, Hasselblad now has a 39 megapixel DSLR.)
I hope you answer is not an external HFS+ volume. HFS+ is downright suicidal, and DiskWarrior is manna from heaven.
Hell, I'm not even sure I'd trust a RAID 1+0 HFS+ volume. ( [Mac] OS X supports only RAID 0, 1 and 0+1, but not 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7.)
SSD long-term data integrity issues are presently a work-in-progress.
HFS+ has always been F***ing garbage. I hate that stupid file system and its terrible directory issues so much, and I wouldn't even own a Mac without disk warrior. I really wish they had an alternative to that ancient piece of crap. It's the one thing I hate more in OSX than the registry in Windows.
What do you mean "now" has a 39 MP DSLR? Digital backs like the Phase One have been out in that resolution since 2006 2007? The newest is an 80MP back.
I'm still waiting for some recommendations on the "any" graphics card you said I can plop into my Mac Pro, besides the 1GB Radeon HD 5770 or 5880 ? OH, snap! I forgot, there's also the $1,200 nVidia Quadro 4000 Mac Edition (which Apple doesn't provide OpenCL support for and which causes kernel panics more than once a day).
So, my credit card is in hand: recommend some of the "any" graphics cards you said I can use in my Mac Pro besides the aforementioned. I'm waaaaaiiiiiiting!
Yeah Apple sucks on gpus. I thought the Quadro 4000 Mac Edition was cheaper now, but they don't even have plans for 10 bit RGB out driver support. Apple is a consumer brand now. We'll all get used to it eventually. If you're a photographer, the only real advantage from a workstation grade GPU you're going to get in Photoshop or capture programs would be 10 bit video out assuming a compatible display. You really don't gain anything else from workstation gpus. They matter more for CAD, 3d modeling, etc. Photoshop is 95% cpu power. The OpenGL drawing functions don't stress a card out that much.
Exactly. Movies will eventually be sold on Thunderbolt flash drives and plugged into TVs with Thunderbolt ports. They'll have the most draconian DRM the planet has ever seen, but their access times will be far superior to Blu-ray.
You are trolling right? It doesn't actually make any sense for the proposed use.
HFS+ has always been F***ing garbage. I hate that stupid file system and its terrible directory issues so much, and I wouldn't even own a Mac without disk warrior. I really wish they had an alternative to that ancient piece of crap. It's the one thing I hate more in OSX than the registry in Windows.
Unfortunately, indications point to a lack of motivation or committment to improve "non-user-facing" changes to [Mac] OS X. If we're lucky, more chewing gum and Band-Aids to HFS+, at the most. I just don't think Apple CARES, unless it's "iOSifying" [Mac] OS X.
I think Lion, ironically the biggest of the big cats, may be the end-of-the-road. 10.7.9 is probably they extent of what we can hope for.
It's a shame about ZFS. In a prioritized list of file systems, it was like:
1. ZFS – 128-bit file system, maximum file size: 16 exabytes; maximum size of any volume: 16 exabytes; maximum size of any attribute: 16 exabytes; size of a maximized ZFS file system: 256 quadrillion exabytes.
"The limitations of ZFS are designed to be so large that they would never be encountered. This was assured by surpassing physical rather than theoretical limitations—there simply is not enough usable matter on the planet Earth to support a maximized ZFS filesystem." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS.)
2. N/A
3. N/A
4. Btrfs – ZFS "pretender," but falls far short.
5. N/A
6. N/A
7. N/A
8. ReiserFS (but since its creator, Hans Reiser, murdered his wife and is serving 15 to life in prison, relying on this file system might not be a good idea for technical reasons and PR reasons).
9. N/A
10. N/A
11. N/A
12. ext4 – a FAR cry from all the aforementioned, but is used by many current Unixes and Linuxes, and Google recently opted to drop their proprietary FS and go with ext. If ZFS and Btrfs are simply impossibilities for [Mac] OS X, at least Apple would be using a more standardized FS. IDK, but it could allow Unix apps to run on [Mac] OS X more easily or be more easily ported. File exchange or transfer standardization could benefit [Mac] OS X. And, without turning it proprietary, I wonder if Apple could create XSan and Xgrid "extensions" for it that would not break compatibility. And would only be available to Mac users!
But, the fewer number of different file systems, the better. We can count on Microsoft not to change, but if Unixes, Linuxes, Google OSes and [Mac] OS X all used the same file system, I think it would be Good Thing™.
What do you mean "now" has a 39 MP DSLR? Digital backs like the Phase One have been out in that resolution since 2006 2007? The newest is an 80MP back.
I-DID-NOT-KNOW-THAT. Fortifies my point by 200%.
Yeah Apple sucks on gpus. I thought the Quadro 4000 Mac Edition was cheaper now, but they don't even have plans for 10 bit RGB out driver support. Apple is a consumer brand now. We'll all get used to it eventually. If you're a photographer, the only real advantage from a workstation grade GPU you're going to get in Photoshop or capture programs would be 10 bit video out assuming a compatible display. You really don't gain anything else from workstation gpus. They matter more for CAD, 3d modeling, etc. Photoshop is 95% cpu power. The OpenGL drawing functions don't stress a card out that much.
Spot on. Can't add much more to that except this article. It is pertinent in its entirety, but the section that reads, The Problem of Apple, is particularly relevant – and they weren't even talking about the extremely limited number of different cards Apple supports!
Lion, ironically the biggest of the big cats, [...]
No, that's the tiger.
.tsooJ