Do you think the next instruction set from Intel on the upcoming chips will fix this if Apple takes advantage of this?
We always see speedups.
Frankly, I don't think Apple cares much. They have other things to worry about. If it seems to be "good enough", they often leave it alone. Third parties often take the lead.
Do you think the next instruction set from Intel on the upcoming chips will fix this if Apple takes advantage of this?
I guess the reason for this lack of speedup it's what has been said before: speed is limited BY THE CD reading, not the encoding per se.
SSE4 will have an impact in the encoding process, you can be sure of that. How much, I don't know. But still, unless you can read from a CD much faster than it's possible today (which isn't possible at the very end because of physical forces), no matter how much processors or technology you put into the CPU, you won't get much faster speeds. That's a prime example of things that can't be parallelized: reading from CD, or even other kinds of media.
I would guess that for the encoding part alone, from a G4 to a G5 to a Core 2 there are significant speed differences, but I'm unable to test this. I'm sure there should be some benchmarks around that test exactly this.
Frankly, I don't think Apple cares much. They have other things to worry about. If it seems to be "good enough", they often leave it alone. Third parties often take the lead.
With only 5 (+or-) percent of the market share, where does this put Apple? If Apple doesn't lead, and only follows, what incentive do buyers have to buy from Apple rather than buy from the dominant players?
With only 5 (+or-) percent of the market share, where does this put Apple? If Apple doesn't lead, and only follows, what incentive do buyers have to buy from Apple rather than buy from the dominant players?
You might have noticed all of the third party software out there. Some of it is even free.
If there is a big enough need (and sometimes, even where there isn't) some person will pop up with some software.
But, this multiple core thing is still too new, esp, in the consumer space. In the pro space, the tools are there.
Frankly, I don't think Apple cares much. They have other things to worry about. If it seems to be "good enough", they often leave it alone. Third parties often take the lead.
I think Apple will utilize the cores as much as possible in their pre built developer tools packages for things like OGL, Core Video, Core Image, Core Animation, for SIMD, and anywhere/anything else they can. Apple knows that developers do not often optimize their products for various processors, and that's why they developed Project Builder, Interface Builder, and later Xcode. Working closely with Adobe to get Altivec optimization focused far too many resources on one single developer just to show what was possible. Even after that most developers still don't make the effort to optimize their applications for their best performance. Now that so many developers are using XCode to build their apps it's far easier for Apple to build most of the necessary enhancements right into the packages.
I think Apple will utilize the cores as much as possible in their pre built developer tools packages for things like OGL, Core Video, Core Image, Core Animation, for SIMD, and anywhere/anything else they can. Apple knows that developers do not often optimize their products for various processors, and that's why they developed Project Builder, Interface Builder, and later Xcode. Working closely with Adobe to get Altivec optimization focused far too many resources on one single developer just to show what was possible. Even after that most developers still don't make the effort to optimize their applications for their best performance. Now that so many developers are using XCode to build their apps it's far easier for Apple to build most of the necessary enhancements right into the packages.
Apple seems interested in doing some things, but they leave certain often commented problems alone for years, a good example is the Finder. It's not that they didn't know about it.
Apple will leverage the OS, and their pro apps, but often leave their consumer apps hanging.
Apple seems interested in doing some things, but they leave certain often commented problems alone for years, a good example is the Finder. It's not that they didn't know about it.
Apple will leverage the OS, and their pro apps, but often leave their consumer apps hanging.
But the finder was not broken, and it has seen some changes in the past few years.
Most of their consumer apps don't comparatively require the attention. The Apple developer force, within the company, is a fairly small group. They don't have the developer resources to spread around as much as they would like. With Apples expanding size in the marketplace they can hardly hire enough quality developers to keep up. Apple doesn't just hire developers like most companies, they actually choose developers from a whittled down pool and then start them at the ground floor so to speak. Apple allocates their resources on their high profile apps. It's better for them in the long run. Within the next few years we should see some quality time spent on their other apps but until then we still have the best of what is available regardless.
But the finder was not broken, and it has seen some changes in the past few years.
Most of their consumer apps don't comparatively require the attention. The Apple developer force, within the company, is a fairly small group. They don't have the developer resources to spread around as much as they would like. With Apples expanding size in the marketplace they can hardly hire enough quality developers to keep up. Apple doesn't just hire developers like most companies, they actually choose developers from a whittled down pool and then start them at the ground floor so to speak. Apple allocates their resources on their high profile apps. It's better for them in the long run. Within the next few years we should see some quality time spent on their other apps but until then we still have the best of what is available regardless.
You're about the only one who doesn't think the Finder is broken.
You're about the only one who doesn't think the Finder is broken.
Basically the definition of broken speaks for itself. It does exactly what Apple says it is supposed to do, and it accomplishes it's tasks in all the demo's - therefore it's not broken. Weather or not the thing could be better or not is a different thing entirely, but all and all, it's better than trying to find anything in windows.
I love my Mac but, windows explorer is better than finder, IMO. It's the only thing I actually feel is better in windows(XP, don't know about vista).
To each his own I guess, but the browser popping up for everything on that OS is one of reasons I hate it most. Having the browser open 24/7 taxing system resources is a total system fux. You can see it, and feel it best if you have an older computer. I hate that thing.
Basically the definition of broken speaks for itself. It does exactly what Apple says it is supposed to do, and it accomplishes it's tasks in all the demo's - therefore it's not broken. Weather or not the thing could be better or not is a different thing entirely, but all and all, it's better than trying to find anything in windows.
I suppose you are really talking semantics then.
I've seen little disagreement that the Finder does many things wrong. The beachball being one of them. Supposedly, Apple has fixed searches in the Finder so that is gone, or minimized.
With all of the complaints people have made about the OS X finder, I'm surprised you are so satisfied.
I am extremely satisfied with Mac OS over windows. I don't expect the current finder to do things other than what it is supposed to do. I've heard people complain about it, but I have seen no real suggestions that will make it more useful without cluttering the interface with a tons of unnecessary crap to go with it. I prefer the finder the way the Mac OS is; simple and unobtrusive. I've seen these so called little better finder apps, and I've tried a few, but I hate the way they try to do it all from the finder rather than make life easier; they make it complicated, cluttered, and hack looking. I know Apple has added some finder features in leopard and I look forword to seeing and using them.
I am extremely satisfied with Mac OS over windows. I don't expect the current finder to do things other than what it is supposed to do. I've heard people complain about it, but I have seen no real suggestions that will make it more useful without cluttering the interface with a tons of unnecessary crap to go with it. I prefer the finder the way the Mac OS is; simple and unobtrusive. I've seen these so called little better finder apps, and I've tried a few, but I hate the way they try to do it all from the finder rather than make life easier; they make it complicated, cluttered, and hack looking. I know Apple has added some finder features in leopard and I look forword to seeing and using them.
It isn't so much adding features. It's the slowness of the response, and the occasional crashes. Also the fact that it isn't properly multithreaded, so that when it bogs down from a search, you can't do anything else with it.
Huh? You must be joking. Column View beats explorer hands down.
Nope. In explorer there are 'actions' like copy and move within explorer that make it easy to do this. As well explorer has a nice tree to see where some thing goes. Finder is easier to find things compared to explorer but other actions are harder, IMO.
Comments
Do you think the next instruction set from Intel on the upcoming chips will fix this if Apple takes advantage of this?
We always see speedups.
Frankly, I don't think Apple cares much. They have other things to worry about. If it seems to be "good enough", they often leave it alone. Third parties often take the lead.
Do you think the next instruction set from Intel on the upcoming chips will fix this if Apple takes advantage of this?
I guess the reason for this lack of speedup it's what has been said before: speed is limited BY THE CD reading, not the encoding per se.
SSE4 will have an impact in the encoding process, you can be sure of that. How much, I don't know. But still, unless you can read from a CD much faster than it's possible today (which isn't possible at the very end because of physical forces), no matter how much processors or technology you put into the CPU, you won't get much faster speeds. That's a prime example of things that can't be parallelized: reading from CD, or even other kinds of media.
I would guess that for the encoding part alone, from a G4 to a G5 to a Core 2 there are significant speed differences, but I'm unable to test this. I'm sure there should be some benchmarks around that test exactly this.
Regards,
Rodrigo Gómez
We always see speedups.
Frankly, I don't think Apple cares much. They have other things to worry about. If it seems to be "good enough", they often leave it alone. Third parties often take the lead.
With only 5 (+or-) percent of the market share, where does this put Apple? If Apple doesn't lead, and only follows, what incentive do buyers have to buy from Apple rather than buy from the dominant players?
With only 5 (+or-) percent of the market share, where does this put Apple? If Apple doesn't lead, and only follows, what incentive do buyers have to buy from Apple rather than buy from the dominant players?
You might have noticed all of the third party software out there. Some of it is even free.
If there is a big enough need (and sometimes, even where there isn't) some person will pop up with some software.
But, this multiple core thing is still too new, esp, in the consumer space. In the pro space, the tools are there.
We always see speedups.
Frankly, I don't think Apple cares much. They have other things to worry about. If it seems to be "good enough", they often leave it alone. Third parties often take the lead.
I think Apple will utilize the cores as much as possible in their pre built developer tools packages for things like OGL, Core Video, Core Image, Core Animation, for SIMD, and anywhere/anything else they can. Apple knows that developers do not often optimize their products for various processors, and that's why they developed Project Builder, Interface Builder, and later Xcode. Working closely with Adobe to get Altivec optimization focused far too many resources on one single developer just to show what was possible. Even after that most developers still don't make the effort to optimize their applications for their best performance. Now that so many developers are using XCode to build their apps it's far easier for Apple to build most of the necessary enhancements right into the packages.
I think Apple will utilize the cores as much as possible in their pre built developer tools packages for things like OGL, Core Video, Core Image, Core Animation, for SIMD, and anywhere/anything else they can. Apple knows that developers do not often optimize their products for various processors, and that's why they developed Project Builder, Interface Builder, and later Xcode. Working closely with Adobe to get Altivec optimization focused far too many resources on one single developer just to show what was possible. Even after that most developers still don't make the effort to optimize their applications for their best performance. Now that so many developers are using XCode to build their apps it's far easier for Apple to build most of the necessary enhancements right into the packages.
Apple seems interested in doing some things, but they leave certain often commented problems alone for years, a good example is the Finder. It's not that they didn't know about it.
Apple will leverage the OS, and their pro apps, but often leave their consumer apps hanging.
Apple seems interested in doing some things, but they leave certain often commented problems alone for years, a good example is the Finder. It's not that they didn't know about it.
Apple will leverage the OS, and their pro apps, but often leave their consumer apps hanging.
But the finder was not broken, and it has seen some changes in the past few years.
Most of their consumer apps don't comparatively require the attention. The Apple developer force, within the company, is a fairly small group. They don't have the developer resources to spread around as much as they would like. With Apples expanding size in the marketplace they can hardly hire enough quality developers to keep up. Apple doesn't just hire developers like most companies, they actually choose developers from a whittled down pool and then start them at the ground floor so to speak. Apple allocates their resources on their high profile apps. It's better for them in the long run. Within the next few years we should see some quality time spent on their other apps but until then we still have the best of what is available regardless.
But the finder was not broken, and it has seen some changes in the past few years.
Most of their consumer apps don't comparatively require the attention. The Apple developer force, within the company, is a fairly small group. They don't have the developer resources to spread around as much as they would like. With Apples expanding size in the marketplace they can hardly hire enough quality developers to keep up. Apple doesn't just hire developers like most companies, they actually choose developers from a whittled down pool and then start them at the ground floor so to speak. Apple allocates their resources on their high profile apps. It's better for them in the long run. Within the next few years we should see some quality time spent on their other apps but until then we still have the best of what is available regardless.
You're about the only one who doesn't think the Finder is broken.
You're about the only one who doesn't think the Finder is broken.
Basically the definition of broken speaks for itself. It does exactly what Apple says it is supposed to do, and it accomplishes it's tasks in all the demo's - therefore it's not broken. Weather or not the thing could be better or not is a different thing entirely, but all and all, it's better than trying to find anything in windows.
, but all and all, it's better than trying to find anything in windows.
I love my Mac but, windows explorer is better than finder, IMO. It's the only thing I actually feel is better in windows(XP, don't know about vista).
I love my Mac but, windows explorer is better than finder, IMO. It's the only thing I actually feel is better in windows(XP, don't know about vista).
To each his own I guess, but the browser popping up for everything on that OS is one of reasons I hate it most. Having the browser open 24/7 taxing system resources is a total system fux. You can see it, and feel it best if you have an older computer. I hate that thing.
Basically the definition of broken speaks for itself. It does exactly what Apple says it is supposed to do, and it accomplishes it's tasks in all the demo's - therefore it's not broken. Weather or not the thing could be better or not is a different thing entirely, but all and all, it's better than trying to find anything in windows.
I suppose you are really talking semantics then.
I've seen little disagreement that the Finder does many things wrong. The beachball being one of them. Supposedly, Apple has fixed searches in the Finder so that is gone, or minimized.
With all of the complaints people have made about the OS X finder, I'm surprised you are so satisfied.
I am extremely satisfied with Mac OS over windows. I don't expect the current finder to do things other than what it is supposed to do. I've heard people complain about it, but I have seen no real suggestions that will make it more useful without cluttering the interface with a tons of unnecessary crap to go with it. I prefer the finder the way the Mac OS is; simple and unobtrusive. I've seen these so called little better finder apps, and I've tried a few, but I hate the way they try to do it all from the finder rather than make life easier; they make it complicated, cluttered, and hack looking. I know Apple has added some finder features in leopard and I look forword to seeing and using them.
It isn't so much adding features. It's the slowness of the response, and the occasional crashes. Also the fact that it isn't properly multithreaded, so that when it bogs down from a search, you can't do anything else with it.
With all of the complaints people have made about the OS X finder, I'm surprised you are so satisfied.
I see nothing wrong with the finder UI wise.
I see nothing wrong with the finder UI wise.
How about transferring files?
It's easier with explorer.
How about transferring files?
It's easier with explorer.
Huh? You must be joking. Column View beats explorer hands down.
Huh? You must be joking. Column View beats explorer hands down.
Nope. In explorer there are 'actions' like copy and move within explorer that make it easy to do this. As well explorer has a nice tree to see where some thing goes. Finder is easier to find things compared to explorer but other actions are harder, IMO.
I see nothing wrong with the finder UI wise.
It's not the look.