I think the Internet is filled with garbage and google is the worst design for a search engi e. all based on who has the most hits, stemming from their PageRank system. I still have trouble finding what I'm looking for.
I have the same trouble trying to get the results I'm looking for. There are far too many spam results and the UI is not very good. For some reason Bing has copied it almost exactly and has worse results. I'd quite like to see a set of results like Apple's Top Sites view. A grid of 5 x 5 icons with just the domain name + text snippet and it would expand to the size of the browser window vertically with more items so I can page through results without scrolling down and be able to have file-based anonymous profiles so that the browser remembers different search preferences and there can be multiple profiles that can be removed, synced or deleted easily without needing any logins.
That looks like a really good design!
One of the most helpful Google options is the minus character where you just add something like -Samsung and it eliminates all the results you aren't interested in. You can also use things like filetype:pdf e.g ipad filetype:pdf if you want to find reference documents. Quotes helps for phrases. You can also search some of the known sites like anandtech with things like site:anandtech.com thunderbolt review -htc.
I know these; good tips! I wish the date settings would work (better). If I filter the results to only show pages updated last month it hardly ever works as you want. I understand that it's also the content that Google cannot manipulate, and therefore would simply love a 'database internet' where there are mandatory fields that need to be filled. Sort of a meta data internet if you will.
Now obviously Google isn't perfect. However neither are web sites maintained by the likes of Intel or TI. The alternative or rather the practice in the past though was terrible.
Indeed, the internet is giving us way more than before ?1995, I just wish the sites themselves would be more informative, structured. Meta tagged, jpg's correctly named so it would show up in a search et cetera.
(hit image links to see the icon view, it can even just use favicons near the text to differentiate the links. I don't think it needs to rotate either, just pan and zoom)
Perhaps there's a search engine that's done this already. You could be on the Google homepage and start typing a search term and Google will just populate a cloud around the box with results. This cloud would show the most relevant terms highlighted but items would be grouped by context. On a multi-touch device, you'd be able to easily pan, rotate and zoom around but it would support the mouse too. If your phrase had two divergent meanings, all results associated with one meaning could be to the left and the other to the right.
They could order the results depth-wise by date and relevance can be off to the sides so you'd just zoom in for older results but always see appropriate results and pan around to see further out terms.
It gets away from this idea of a fixed page of 10 or so links that mostly dictates what you can find and it means that it's no longer just a top 10, it would be as many as would fit into the browser window.
jpg's correctly named so it would show up in a search et cetera.
Yeah, Google Image search seems to pick out phrases from pages that images are located on sometimes so the weirdest results come up. They really need to do some basic image analysis to weed out the crazy results.
Now THAT is good design and a great idea. Reminds me a bit of musicovery.com/ where you could stream music based on your mood. Now it looks pretty poor, it was great looking, and working, a few years back.
It gets away from this idea of a fixed page of 10 or so links that mostly dictates what you can find and it means that it's no longer just a top 10, it would be as many as would fit into the browser window.
Nice to read that 'someone on the internet' is having the same feelings about Google search. Not only that, the way you describe it sounds like how I imagine it. Again, thank you Marvin.
Canvas is nice but I don't think that aspect is quite ready for mass use just yet. Open up Activity Monitor and check your Safari Web Content before, during and after using it. It's very processor intensive. I had hoped by 2013 they would have figured out a way to resolve that. Perhaps offloading the animation to the GPU or some other HW acceleration but that is out of my depth so I'm not even sure that's possible with WebKit.
Canvas is nice but I don't think that aspect is quite ready for mass use just yet. Open up Activity Monitor and check your Safari Web Content before, during and after using it. It's very processor intensive. I had hoped by 2013 they would have figured out a way to resolve that. Perhaps offloading the animation to the GPU or some other HW acceleration but that is out of my depth so I'm not even sure that's possible with WebKit.
Me and my Mac Pro mind; never monitor the Activity anymore. But fully agree; in 2013 this ought to be peanuts for light computers as well. But I'm not a software developer so what do I know.
Me and my Mac Pro mind; never monitor the Activity anymore. But fully agree; in 2013 this ought to be peanuts for light computers as well. But I'm not a software developer so what do I know.
I just tried it on my iPad (3) and it worked fine except for the most minute amount of infrequent stutter but If I hadn't been specifically looking for flaws I certainly wouldn't have thought it was jerky. I have no idea what the processor load is but I'd say that one window is fine and 2 was OK but when opening up 3 or more tabs the result really fell away.
I'm curious to see how opening up two pages, one with Canvas and without will affect the battery life of the iPad. Maybe I'll do a 5% test from full to see the differences… or not.
Canvas is nice but I don't think that aspect is quite ready for mass use just yet. Open up Activity Monitor and check your Safari Web Content before, during and after using it. It's very processor intensive. I had hoped by 2013 they would have figured out a way to resolve that. Perhaps offloading the animation to the GPU or some other HW acceleration but that is out of my depth so I'm not even sure that's possible with WebKit.
It's mostly Javascript that's the problem as it doesn't have a sleep function so people have to basically just keep redrawing at a set rate. They've set this one at a 20 millisecond refresh so 50 refreshes per second / FPS, which is overkill for what it's doing but it keeps it smooth.
It can be done in a way that it only redraws when the content moves. Like I say it doesn't have to rotate with mouse movement. It also doesn't have to technically be drawn with Canvas either but it is in fact hardware-accelerated that way. The processor usage would be way higher if it was done in software (unless you have hardware-accelerated compositing).
The refresh rate can be very slow when typing a search out and fast for zooming and panning but once you stop moving, the rate can go way back down again.
You can force that demo to a slower rate if you use the Javascript error console. Just type in:
for(i in TagCanvas.tc){TagCanvas.tc[i].interval=40;}
That will half the refresh rate and you'll see the CPU usage drop. You wouldn't want to go below 12FPS, which is around 80ms.
It's also one of the most reliable information storage technologies that exist (not as reliable as microfilms, but quite good). As far as I know, nobody thinks of killing that old invention from the 19th century "electricity", or the bicycle, or the diesel engine, or even nuclear reactors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
And if they are going to kill the HDD (good for them, it's an old invention from 1954 and the sooner it's killed the better)
It's often suggested that Apple can generate a lot more sales by having more options in the lineups but you have to demonstrate there is a significant market for the suggested options and the figures don't back it up for a tower in the $1000-2000 range. Apple already has the premium PC market locked down, just as they have with the tablet and smartphone markets.
He seems to describe a half cube for rack-mounting, which isn't technically a cube e.g 13x13x7. This is essentially a smaller Mac Pro on its side.
If they were going with an actual cube, I don't think it would be good going above 8". The 12" NeXT Cube was far too big:
It would have the same footprint as the Mac Pro does now but I wouldn't like to see it take up more horizontal space. If it has to sit on the floor, it'll get in the way of your feet and it certainly won't sit on the desk. I'd like to see a machine people can sit on their desk quite easily.
He's so sexy, I have to tell the truth. Not the computer.
[quote name="lightknight" url="/t/155833/apple-tells-reseller-new-mac-pro-coming-in-spring-2013/320#post_2286971"]It's also one of the most reliable information storage technologies that exist (not as reliable as microfilms, but quite good). As far as I know, nobody thinks of killing that old invention from the 19th century "electricity", or the bicycle, or the diesel engine, or even nuclear reactors.[/QUOTE]
Well I don't mean that tech ought to be killed because there is something else that fits the bill but it would be great if the HDD was replaced by a non mechanically moving part storage device, like SSD.
You are certainly right that there is better and more reliable storage solutions out there, like tape. But the speed of SSD outperforms them all, and the cost per GB is lowest with a HDD.
Well, re the original post in this thread, it's now spring and no announcement on a new MacPro yet. If there is an announcement it'll probably be for a June 20 introduction with availability stating September 20.
Well, re the original post in this thread, it's now spring and no announcement on a new MacPro yet. If there is an announcement it'll probably be for a June 20 introduction with availability stating September 20.
It's usually not that far. The imac was an enigma, but it was likely due to slips. They probably intended to announce in September and ship soon after. The 2010 Mac Pro shipped a month after announcement. I don't see them doing this. I could see them announcing a little early as by July it will have been a year.
So we'll see a new Mac Pro at WWDC this June 10-14 according to this posting. Can't wait! There were some leaks about it running AMD 7XXX Graphics on the newest OS X 10.8.3 Beta and as we all know that's a PCI Express 3.0 GPU.
So we'll see a new Mac Pro at WWDC this June 10-14 according to this posting. Can't wait! There were some leaks about it running AMD 7XXX Graphics on the newest OS X 10.8.3 Beta and as we all know that's a PCI Express 3.0 GPU.
They probably won't use the 7000 series. The 8000 series is a rebadge so it'll use the same drivers.
They might not even use AMD GPUs at all. The Radeon 8970M doesn't stack up well against NVidia:
This year's 8970M is 7.5% faster than the 680M. The 680MX Apple already uses in the iMac is 15-20% faster than the 680M and this year's Kepler-refresh will be even faster than that.
If the desktop 8970 performs better than say a desktop GTX 780, then possibly but NVidia cards have the advantage of running CUDA software.
PCIe 2 vs 3 doesn't matter and the chipset suitable for the Ivy Bridge Xeon doesn't have PCIe 3 support.
That's the most stupid thing you have ever written! And you have written lots of them. All Xeon E3/E5 chips support PCie 3 including Sandy Bridge E5 parts that have been around for more than a year. Then PCie lanes have been on the cpus for a bunch of years now, with just a few legacy lanes on the chipset (IOH). Get an education before pretending knowing it all about processors, computers and Apple.
Of course PCIe 3 matters, even for prosumer things like Thunderbolt: 4 lanes = twice the bandwidth. How do you think Intel will double Thunderbolt performance next year! It will also matter for NVM Express devices as you will be able to offer more slots (drives) with PCIe 3 than with PCIe 2. Everything is not just about gpus (even if many modern ones already support PCIe 3).
So we'll see a new Mac Pro at WWDC this June 10-14 according to this posting. Can't wait! There were some leaks about it running AMD 7XXX Graphics on the newest OS X 10.8.3 Beta and as we all know that's a PCI Express 3.0 GPU.
They probably won't use the 7000 series. The 8000 series is a rebadge so it'll use the same drivers.
By the time the Mac Pro actually ships it could have the next generation AMD GPU.
They might not even use AMD GPUs at all. The Radeon 8970M doesn't stack up well against NVidia:
This isn't a discussion about mobile. Besides that your bench is useless and likely underwritten by NVidia. Look at some of the interesting numbers here: http://clbenchmark.com/, in simple terms NVidia sucks.
This year's 8970M is 7.5% faster than the 680M. The 680MX Apple already uses in the iMac is 15-20% faster than the 680M and this year's Kepler-refresh will be even faster than that.
If the desktop 8970 performs better than say a desktop GTX 780, then possibly but NVidia cards have the advantage of running CUDA software.
CUDA is dying on the vine like any vendor specific technology should.
PCIe 2 vs 3 doesn't matter and the chipset suitable for the Ivy Bridge Xeon doesn't have PCIe 3 support.
PCI Express 3 is a huge improvement over 2. It means fewer lanes are needed to feed the demanding ports leaving more lanes free for TB and other technologies. Beyond that Xeon isn't locked into the Mac Pro and in fact I see it as a mistake. In fact I'd be rather surprised to find the next gen Mac Pro using conventional Xeon chips.
Comments
That looks like a really good design!
I know these; good tips! I wish the date settings would work (better). If I filter the results to only show pages updated last month it hardly ever works as you want. I understand that it's also the content that Google cannot manipulate, and therefore would simply love a 'database internet' where there are mandatory fields that need to be filled. Sort of a meta data internet if you will.
Indeed, the internet is giving us way more than before ?1995, I just wish the sites themselves would be more informative, structured. Meta tagged, jpg's correctly named so it would show up in a search et cetera.
Another thing I considered was a kind of tag cloud like you get on websites but dynamic:
http://www.goat1000.com/tagcanvas.php
(hit image links to see the icon view, it can even just use favicons near the text to differentiate the links. I don't think it needs to rotate either, just pan and zoom)
Perhaps there's a search engine that's done this already. You could be on the Google homepage and start typing a search term and Google will just populate a cloud around the box with results. This cloud would show the most relevant terms highlighted but items would be grouped by context. On a multi-touch device, you'd be able to easily pan, rotate and zoom around but it would support the mouse too. If your phrase had two divergent meanings, all results associated with one meaning could be to the left and the other to the right.
They could order the results depth-wise by date and relevance can be off to the sides so you'd just zoom in for older results but always see appropriate results and pan around to see further out terms.
It gets away from this idea of a fixed page of 10 or so links that mostly dictates what you can find and it means that it's no longer just a top 10, it would be as many as would fit into the browser window.
Yeah, Google Image search seems to pick out phrases from pages that images are located on sometimes so the weirdest results come up. They really need to do some basic image analysis to weed out the crazy results.
Now THAT is good design and a great idea. Reminds me a bit of musicovery.com/ where you could stream music based on your mood. Now it looks pretty poor, it was great looking, and working, a few years back.
Nice to read that 'someone on the internet' is having the same feelings about Google search. Not only that, the way you describe it sounds like how I imagine it. Again, thank you Marvin.
Canvas is nice but I don't think that aspect is quite ready for mass use just yet. Open up Activity Monitor and check your Safari Web Content before, during and after using it. It's very processor intensive. I had hoped by 2013 they would have figured out a way to resolve that. Perhaps offloading the animation to the GPU or some other HW acceleration but that is out of my depth so I'm not even sure that's possible with WebKit.
Me and my Mac Pro mind; never monitor the Activity anymore. But fully agree; in 2013 this ought to be peanuts for light computers as well. But I'm not a software developer so what do I know.
I just tried it on my iPad (3) and it worked fine except for the most minute amount of infrequent stutter but If I hadn't been specifically looking for flaws I certainly wouldn't have thought it was jerky. I have no idea what the processor load is but I'd say that one window is fine and 2 was OK but when opening up 3 or more tabs the result really fell away.
I'm curious to see how opening up two pages, one with Canvas and without will affect the battery life of the iPad. Maybe I'll do a 5% test from full to see the differences… or not.
It's mostly Javascript that's the problem as it doesn't have a sleep function so people have to basically just keep redrawing at a set rate. They've set this one at a 20 millisecond refresh so 50 refreshes per second / FPS, which is overkill for what it's doing but it keeps it smooth.
It can be done in a way that it only redraws when the content moves. Like I say it doesn't have to rotate with mouse movement. It also doesn't have to technically be drawn with Canvas either but it is in fact hardware-accelerated that way. The processor usage would be way higher if it was done in software (unless you have hardware-accelerated compositing).
The refresh rate can be very slow when typing a search out and fast for zooming and panning but once you stop moving, the rate can go way back down again.
You can force that demo to a slower rate if you use the Javascript error console. Just type in:
for(i in TagCanvas.tc){TagCanvas.tc[i].interval=40;}That will half the refresh rate and you'll see the CPU usage drop. You wouldn't want to go below 12FPS, which is around 80ms.
It's also one of the most reliable information storage technologies that exist (not as reliable as microfilms, but quite good). As far as I know, nobody thinks of killing that old invention from the 19th century "electricity", or the bicycle, or the diesel engine, or even nuclear reactors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
And if they are going to kill the HDD (good for them, it's an old invention from 1954 and the sooner it's killed the better)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It's often suggested that Apple can generate a lot more sales by having more options in the lineups but you have to demonstrate there is a significant market for the suggested options and the figures don't back it up for a tower in the $1000-2000 range. Apple already has the premium PC market locked down, just as they have with the tablet and smartphone markets.
He seems to describe a half cube for rack-mounting, which isn't technically a cube e.g 13x13x7. This is essentially a smaller Mac Pro on its side.
If they were going with an actual cube, I don't think it would be good going above 8". The 12" NeXT Cube was far too big:
It would have the same footprint as the Mac Pro does now but I wouldn't like to see it take up more horizontal space. If it has to sit on the floor, it'll get in the way of your feet and it certainly won't sit on the desk. I'd like to see a machine people can sit on their desk quite easily.
He's so sexy, I have to tell the truth. Not the computer.
Well I don't mean that tech ought to be killed because there is something else that fits the bill but it would be great if the HDD was replaced by a non mechanically moving part storage device, like SSD.
You are certainly right that there is better and more reliable storage solutions out there, like tape. But the speed of SSD outperforms them all, and the cost per GB is lowest with a HDD.
Originally Posted by OldCodger73
…June 20 introduction with availability stating September 20.
That's like kicking someone in the crotch in the middle of a duel and when he looks up at you, beaten and broken, you slap him in the face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That's like kicking someone in the crotch in the middle of a duel and when he looks up at you, beaten and broken, you slap him in the face.
But that's the Apple way: announce a product with actual availability several months in the future.
Originally Posted by OldCodger73
But that's the Apple way: announce a product with actual availability several months in the future.
Uh, no! Not if they can help it!
"Shipping today" has always been their goal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCodger73
Well, re the original post in this thread, it's now spring and no announcement on a new MacPro yet. If there is an announcement it'll probably be for a June 20 introduction with availability stating September 20.
It's usually not that far. The imac was an enigma, but it was likely due to slips. They probably intended to announce in September and ship soon after. The 2010 Mac Pro shipped a month after announcement. I don't see them doing this. I could see them announcing a little early as by July it will have been a year.
So we'll see a new Mac Pro at WWDC this June 10-14 according to this posting. Can't wait! There were some leaks about it running AMD 7XXX Graphics on the newest OS X 10.8.3 Beta and as we all know that's a PCI Express 3.0 GPU.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/11/27/os-x-1083-beta-supports-amd-radeon-7000-drivers-hinting-at-apples-new-mac-pro
They probably won't use the 7000 series. The 8000 series is a rebadge so it'll use the same drivers.
They might not even use AMD GPUs at all. The Radeon 8970M doesn't stack up well against NVidia:
http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-hd-8970m-neptune-sea-islands-gpu-performance-unveiled-msi-gx70-notebook/#ixzz2P2ZoqRi7
This year's 8970M is 7.5% faster than the 680M. The 680MX Apple already uses in the iMac is 15-20% faster than the 680M and this year's Kepler-refresh will be even faster than that.
If the desktop 8970 performs better than say a desktop GTX 780, then possibly but NVidia cards have the advantage of running CUDA software.
The GTX 780 might arrive in a couple of weeks:
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/31265-geforce-gtx-780-coming-on-may-23rd
PCIe 2 vs 3 doesn't matter and the chipset suitable for the Ivy Bridge Xeon doesn't have PCIe 3 support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
PCIe 2 vs 3 doesn't matter and the chipset suitable for the Ivy Bridge Xeon doesn't have PCIe 3 support.
That's the most stupid thing you have ever written! And you have written lots of them. All Xeon E3/E5 chips support PCie 3 including Sandy Bridge E5 parts that have been around for more than a year. Then PCie lanes have been on the cpus for a bunch of years now, with just a few legacy lanes on the chipset (IOH). Get an education before pretending knowing it all about processors, computers and Apple.
Of course PCIe 3 matters, even for prosumer things like Thunderbolt: 4 lanes = twice the bandwidth. How do you think Intel will double Thunderbolt performance next year! It will also matter for NVM Express devices as you will be able to offer more slots (drives) with PCIe 3 than with PCIe 2. Everything is not just about gpus (even if many modern ones already support PCIe 3).
A real leak or current information would be nice.