sevenfeet

matrix077 said:

maciekskontakt said:

What's the purpose? Just mac Mac Pro with processing power like this. No Apple displays is even near to EIZO or NEC professional graphic design monitors. That is top shelf above average pocket. We need processing unit with solid system - nothing else. That is not prosumer or regular consumer.

Think it’s for coders (scientific & architecture too. Basically any groups that want to crunch number). Too many of them at Apple, Google, Facebook etc. what you said about monitor is irrelevant to this group. 

I've seen Youtube's creator studios out in California.  All of their editing labs have 2013 Mac Pros.  This (and the future Mac Pro) is an obvious upgrade for then.

ksec said:

iOS 11 and 11.1 were definitely slower on my iPhone 6s.  11.1 improved slightly, but was still slower then iOS 10.x

11.2, however no longer lags. It feel smooth again, whether it is faster or the same as iOS 10.x, i cant remember. But at least i am satisfy with the performance now.

As a matter of fact, ALL apps, not just iOS, feels snappier or back to what it was in iOS 10.x.

As with most iOS release Apple has decided to disable some optimization for older iDevices until later release, a practice i cant quite understand.

I still have a 6 Plus for the moment (my X just shipped) and i have to say that 11.2 is the first version of 11 that i feel is genuinely usable.  The old versions from 11 to 11.1.2 were extremely laggy.  Apps would just crash for no reason, especially Apple Maps during guidance if you left the app and but it in the background.  And there was a maddening bug playing audio through the Lightning port in situations like Apple CarPlay.

Part of this I think is likely the lack of memory in this device (and the previous 5s).  1 GB of memory is stretching it these days and my wife's iPhone 7 performs much better.

My take is that FaceID probably came out of the efforts of the iPhone camera team and the iPhoto/Photos teams.  They've been working for years on specific technology to make pictures better by concentrating on faces by way of their image processing algorithms.  Through their research, they figured that with the right sensors, they could get even better pattern matching and have the raw processing and machine learning power to put it into silicon.

Which gets back to one of the reflexive criticisms of this tech from the Android crowd, namely that this tech already existed in other phones.  Actually, what they were doing was very similar to the facial recognition done in iPhoto/Photos for many years.  Using infrared, depth camera and a whole bunch of other machine learning tech is a big leap which makes using this as a secure ID a very big deal.  Honestly the only one of Apple's competitors that has the ability to even try to duplicate this is Samsung and they will have to work a while to get the silicon piece of the puzzle down.

tundraboy said:

For years and years we hear people bitching that iTunes is bloated.  Turns out, there's another cohort out there who will bitch when iTunes slims down.  Steve had been right all along to just design the product as Apple sees fit, and to hell with what all the moaners moan about because there will always be moaners no matter what Apple does.

++++++1

rob53 said:

I'd like to know how many OSes and applications can actually make use of 8 cores. I know the "pro" apps (usually) can but I've seen more apps making use of GPUs instead of CPU cores. I'd also like to see actual documentation of the number of cores standard pro apps use, like Adobe apps. Once someone gives all the details on which apps can make good use of multiple cores, not just spread the work around and not gain any speed, then we can see whether the mainstream (not "pro"??) computers are simply using this as a marketing ploy. 

It depends on what you're trying to accomplish.  If you spend your day in Final Cut, then the more cores, the better.  If you're looking for the ultimate Mac gaming rig, then top core speed and just an 8/16 CPU likely makes more sense (and a lot cheaper too).  And the high density core chips have to run at slower speeds to manage heat dissipation, a problem that current 2013 Mac Pro users have if you select the 12 core model.  On single threaded tasks, the last few iMacs clean its clock.  But I took a tour of Youtube's content creator facility just outside of Los Angeles earlier this year and all of their editing rooms were run by 12 core 2013 Mac Pros.  For the right application, the number of cores matter.  The 18/36 Xeon running at 2.3 Ghz isn't going to set the world on fire until you bring 36 threads to bear when you are editing multiple uncompressed 4K files.  The only curious thing about this chip is that it can burst to 4.3 GHz I assume for short periods of time or demanding single threaded tasks.  Maybe it might handle it better than the current crop of Xeons.