still, one can hope for what apple marketing will call "octo core" processing in the towers in mid april - that's only 5 months after the chips were made available, right? ...or is every last employee at apple working on the iPhone now? just because you take "computer" out of the company name, don't take computers out of the company lineup.
this is sort of off topic, but most CS3 applications wont even benefit the use of quad. Perhaps the only CS3 applications that will benefit from this, are the video apps. Wasn't there an article from an Adobe rep that didn't even take advantage of 64-bit architecture? I'm pretty sure I read it on AI site, he made a lot of true points, but it still pissed me off.
To me, it seems like CPU technology kicks ass, and is where it should be. I think where the real overhaul is needed, is software + OS, and hard drive technology. Once software takes a huge leap (and I'm talking years beyond Leopard and Vista), and advances, I think that's where we're really going to see dramatic changes.
What am I getting at with all of this is? There's no real need for 8-cores for a vast majority of Power Mac Users... at least not yet. Too much hype on CPU
For many years now the hardware often has capabilities that the software is not yet ready for. In this case 64 bit instructions, 64 bit memory addressing, multiple cores. This is further complicated by having to support PPC (G4, G5) and Intel (core duo, core2duo). To make matters even worst they also have to support OSX and Windows. Most developers will code to the lowest denominator so as to be able to run on all the above.
My cristal ball tells me that: The core 2 duos will likely be fully utilized by Adobe and others on or about the time that CS5 comes out.
i'm guilty of the same thing. I'll end up buying high performance ego, rather than ultimate efficiency. Numbers would lead me to believe there is a noticable difference, but honestly, once you get behind a Dual G5 vs. an 8-core machine, running photoshop, there isn't going to be a trail of burns, left behind by speed. However, a difference could be said for After Effects/Premiere/Final Cut.
I felt like in previous years, the less I knew, the more performance changes I could see. Not that I'm at the top of my game, but I don't think companies are really paradigm thinking/strategizing beyond what an OS should be... they're too busy soaking up the profits of milking the technology.
Damn them, and yet i'll still get suckered into the transition, instead of the "big picture" lol
I rather wear shoes a little bigger than I need than to wear a pair that is too tight. A little room to grow is always good. Besides the bottom line is can you afford it or not.
BTW, bigger is better, don't listen to those with small systems tell you that the only thing that count is your technique. LOL
What am I getting at with all of this is? There's no real need for 8-cores for a vast majority of Power Mac Users... at least not yet. Too much hype on CPU
Agreed! I have the dual 3.0 xeons and I can't max out my CPUs or my ram no matter what I try. The applications just can't seem to take advantage of the capacity. Rendering or encoding movies still takes forever and only uses 25% of the available CPU and only a couple hundred megs of the ram.
I rather wear shoes a little bigger than I need than to wear a pair that is too tight. A little room to grow is always good. Besides the bottom line is can you afford it or not.
BTW, bigger is better, don't listen to those with small systems tell you that the only thing that count is your technique. LOL
Considering that I'm a power user, the amount of hardware involved in 8 cores is that of clown shoes to your metaphor lol
For many years now the hardware often has capabilities that the software is not yet ready for. In this case 64 bit instructions, 64 bit memory addressing, multiple cores. This is further complicated by having to support PPC (G4, G5) and Intel (core duo, core2duo). To make matters even worst they also have to support OSX and Windows. Most developers will code to the lowest denominator so as to be able to run on all the above.
My cristal ball tells me that: The core 2 duos will likely be fully utilized by Adobe and others on or about the time that CS5 comes out.
Yes, there is definite truth to what your saying.. what's the Metallica song? "Sad, but true..." lol
this is sort of off topic, but most CS3 applications wont even benefit the use of quad. Perhaps the only CS3 applications that will benefit from this, are the video apps.
What about the new 'Photoshop Extended' in CS3? It apparently has significant new 3D functionality. Could quad help it?
What about the new 'Photoshop Extended' in CS3? It apparently has significant new 3D functionality. Could quad help it?
.
Perhaps it would help render time of the 3D functionality.
Personally, I think Adobe's architecture of memory usage is extremely inflated. Ever open a 100MB file? Task monitor will tell you there's 800 MB in usage... i have no problem with that, but I have a problem when all files are closed within photoshop, and the usage number is still climbing!!
Agreed! I have the dual 3.0 xeons and I can't max out my CPUs or my ram no matter what I try. The applications just can't seem to take advantage of the capacity. Rendering or encoding movies still takes forever and only uses 25% of the available CPU and only a couple hundred megs of the ram.
I hope Apple's software is improved in this regard. At the very least, for encoding or rendering, split the track into as many segments as there are free cores and stitch the segments together at the end. I can max out a Quad right now, but it takes using two or three apps to do it.
The fact that Apple's success is so closely intertwined with the ability of Adobe to deliver is troubling, and the fact that they've delayed new hardware introductions for this same reason is doubly-troubly.
A bit of a 'nah' to both worries. Sort of.
Yes, Apple is dependent on Adobe, but Apple's marketshare has been expanding in recent years, diversifying its user base. There's only so many pro graphics users, but there's plenty of consumers for Apple to pick up. It's a slow process, but as it continues, Apple becomes a little less dependent on Adobe every year (though Adobe will always still matter).
As for the second point, there's really nothing wrong with Apple timing new hardware intros to coincide with Adobe product releases, at least for Apple's 'Pro' hardware offerings. Adobe's products drive Apple's Pro hardware sales, and slightly delaying said HW intros results in better margins as component prices come down with time (as they always do), so why not?
The annoying/bad part is having the consumer HW delayed until the Pro stuff debuts, because updated consumer HW can often perform as well as the old Pro HW for much less money, and Apple sure doesn't want that. THAT is the part I do not like, and I think its not particularly good for Apple either, because it leaves a time gap where potential Windows switchers can look at both sides of the consumer HW fence (PC and Mac) and see the PC side coming out quite a lot better. Not good.
The fact that Apple's success is so closely intertwined with the ability of Adobe to deliver is troubling, and the fact that they've delayed new hardware introductions for this same reason is doubly-troubly.
I don't think they delayed new hardware for Adobe. If anything, they may have delayed a Mac Pro update for the upcoming broadcast trade show.
Comments
this is sort of off topic, but most CS3 applications wont even benefit the use of quad. Perhaps the only CS3 applications that will benefit from this, are the video apps. Wasn't there an article from an Adobe rep that didn't even take advantage of 64-bit architecture? I'm pretty sure I read it on AI site, he made a lot of true points, but it still pissed me off.
To me, it seems like CPU technology kicks ass, and is where it should be. I think where the real overhaul is needed, is software + OS, and hard drive technology. Once software takes a huge leap (and I'm talking years beyond Leopard and Vista), and advances, I think that's where we're really going to see dramatic changes.
What am I getting at with all of this is? There's no real need for 8-cores for a vast majority of Power Mac Users... at least not yet. Too much hype on CPU
For many years now the hardware often has capabilities that the software is not yet ready for. In this case 64 bit instructions, 64 bit memory addressing, multiple cores. This is further complicated by having to support PPC (G4, G5) and Intel (core duo, core2duo). To make matters even worst they also have to support OSX and Windows. Most developers will code to the lowest denominator so as to be able to run on all the above.
My cristal ball tells me that: The core 2 duos will likely be fully utilized by Adobe and others on or about the time that CS5 comes out.
Diden't any one notice the 24 iMac for $999 ?
Where????
Here is 1999 http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObje...13&family=iMac
That's what forums are for. This insult came all the way from England. That's what I call bad English
Oh dear, how embarrassing.
i'm guilty of the same thing. I'll end up buying high performance ego, rather than ultimate efficiency. Numbers would lead me to believe there is a noticable difference, but honestly, once you get behind a Dual G5 vs. an 8-core machine, running photoshop, there isn't going to be a trail of burns, left behind by speed. However, a difference could be said for After Effects/Premiere/Final Cut.
I felt like in previous years, the less I knew, the more performance changes I could see. Not that I'm at the top of my game, but I don't think companies are really paradigm thinking/strategizing beyond what an OS should be... they're too busy soaking up the profits of milking the technology.
Damn them, and yet i'll still get suckered into the transition, instead of the "big picture" lol
I rather wear shoes a little bigger than I need than to wear a pair that is too tight. A little room to grow is always good. Besides the bottom line is can you afford it or not.
BTW, bigger is better, don't listen to those with small systems tell you that the only thing that count is your technique. LOL
What am I getting at with all of this is? There's no real need for 8-cores for a vast majority of Power Mac Users... at least not yet. Too much hype on CPU
Agreed! I have the dual 3.0 xeons and I can't max out my CPUs or my ram no matter what I try. The applications just can't seem to take advantage of the capacity. Rendering or encoding movies still takes forever and only uses 25% of the available CPU and only a couple hundred megs of the ram.
m
YOU GUYS ARE ALL RETARDS AND APPLEINSIDER IS TOO!!!!
When apple means quad-core as in they taking about 4 cores in TOTAL, this has NO indication of quad-core processors.
Idiots stop trying to over analysis every single thing Apple does.
You must be new here.
-Could you use XSlimmer to strip out the superfluous code & speed up the app? -I did on my machine & the diff. is noticeable.
Didn't know about that, Superkaratemonkeydeathcar, thanks for the idea. I might just try it when the proper upgrade version arrives on my doorstep!
I rather wear shoes a little bigger than I need than to wear a pair that is too tight. A little room to grow is always good. Besides the bottom line is can you afford it or not.
BTW, bigger is better, don't listen to those with small systems tell you that the only thing that count is your technique. LOL
Considering that I'm a power user, the amount of hardware involved in 8 cores is that of clown shoes to your metaphor lol
For many years now the hardware often has capabilities that the software is not yet ready for. In this case 64 bit instructions, 64 bit memory addressing, multiple cores. This is further complicated by having to support PPC (G4, G5) and Intel (core duo, core2duo). To make matters even worst they also have to support OSX and Windows. Most developers will code to the lowest denominator so as to be able to run on all the above.
My cristal ball tells me that: The core 2 duos will likely be fully utilized by Adobe and others on or about the time that CS5 comes out.
Yes, there is definite truth to what your saying.. what's the Metallica song? "Sad, but true..." lol
this is sort of off topic, but most CS3 applications wont even benefit the use of quad. Perhaps the only CS3 applications that will benefit from this, are the video apps.
What about the new 'Photoshop Extended' in CS3? It apparently has significant new 3D functionality. Could quad help it?
.
What about the new 'Photoshop Extended' in CS3? It apparently has significant new 3D functionality. Could quad help it?
.
Perhaps it would help render time of the 3D functionality.
Personally, I think Adobe's architecture of memory usage is extremely inflated. Ever open a 100MB file? Task monitor will tell you there's 800 MB in usage... i have no problem with that, but I have a problem when all files are closed within photoshop, and the usage number is still climbing!!
Sorry, had to vent
Agreed! I have the dual 3.0 xeons and I can't max out my CPUs or my ram no matter what I try. The applications just can't seem to take advantage of the capacity. Rendering or encoding movies still takes forever and only uses 25% of the available CPU and only a couple hundred megs of the ram.
I hope Apple's software is improved in this regard. At the very least, for encoding or rendering, split the track into as many segments as there are free cores and stitch the segments together at the end. I can max out a Quad right now, but it takes using two or three apps to do it.
The fact that Apple's success is so closely intertwined with the ability of Adobe to deliver is troubling, and the fact that they've delayed new hardware introductions for this same reason is doubly-troubly.
A bit of a 'nah' to both worries. Sort of.
Yes, Apple is dependent on Adobe, but Apple's marketshare has been expanding in recent years, diversifying its user base. There's only so many pro graphics users, but there's plenty of consumers for Apple to pick up. It's a slow process, but as it continues, Apple becomes a little less dependent on Adobe every year (though Adobe will always still matter).
As for the second point, there's really nothing wrong with Apple timing new hardware intros to coincide with Adobe product releases, at least for Apple's 'Pro' hardware offerings. Adobe's products drive Apple's Pro hardware sales, and slightly delaying said HW intros results in better margins as component prices come down with time (as they always do), so why not?
The annoying/bad part is having the consumer HW delayed until the Pro stuff debuts, because updated consumer HW can often perform as well as the old Pro HW for much less money, and Apple sure doesn't want that. THAT is the part I do not like, and I think its not particularly good for Apple either, because it leaves a time gap where potential Windows switchers can look at both sides of the consumer HW fence (PC and Mac) and see the PC side coming out quite a lot better. Not good.
.
The fact that Apple's success is so closely intertwined with the ability of Adobe to deliver is troubling, and the fact that they've delayed new hardware introductions for this same reason is doubly-troubly.
I don't think they delayed new hardware for Adobe. If anything, they may have delayed a Mac Pro update for the upcoming broadcast trade show.
I don't think they delayed new hardware for Adobe. If anything, they may have delayed a Mac Pro update for the upcoming broadcast trade show.
Good point, that is a possibility as well.
.
That's what forums are for. This insult came all the way from England. That's what I call bad English
Yes the post maybe from England but my first lanuage is not English as I am Chinese. So excuse, at times, my poor grammer.
I don't think they delayed new hardware for Adobe. If anything, they may have delayed a Mac Pro update for the upcoming broadcast trade show.
or for a upcoming intel chip set.
Sadly, there is no plan for quad-core processors made for notebooks right now. Only desktops.
Cry me a river.