Mr. Mister
Jul 14, 04:31 PM
If There's No BTO Option For A Single-processor 2.66 Configuration, That Will Be Frustrating™.
Thex1138
Apr 19, 07:37 PM
It's a Samsung Galaxy Tab.
Ridiculous nit-picking. http://kr.engadget.com/tag/samsung+galaxy+tab/ it's in Korean, but I'm sure you get the idea.
@kdarling: look up.. up... 4 posts up.. There you go.
I saw that too.. a chick in our office loves her GaxTab... but that's a definite iBooks cloner...
I also had to joke about her reason for buying it,.... to back up her PC files and transport them from office to home n vice-versa... ;)
Ridiculous nit-picking. http://kr.engadget.com/tag/samsung+galaxy+tab/ it's in Korean, but I'm sure you get the idea.
@kdarling: look up.. up... 4 posts up.. There you go.
I saw that too.. a chick in our office loves her GaxTab... but that's a definite iBooks cloner...
I also had to joke about her reason for buying it,.... to back up her PC files and transport them from office to home n vice-versa... ;)
atari1356
Jul 27, 09:51 AM
Yes. I believe people who have gotten their hands on Core 2 Duo beta chips have put them in their mini's with no difference (except a massive speed boost)
It's no problem in the Mini's, however, in both the MacBook and MacBook Pro the chips are soldered onto the logic board... so they're not upgradeable.
(although I expect some company like Daystar will eventually offer a "mail your computer in and we'll upgrade the processor" service like they do the PowerBook G4's)
It's no problem in the Mini's, however, in both the MacBook and MacBook Pro the chips are soldered onto the logic board... so they're not upgradeable.
(although I expect some company like Daystar will eventually offer a "mail your computer in and we'll upgrade the processor" service like they do the PowerBook G4's)
Elvin77
Mar 22, 01:24 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
1) Battery life IS a big deal
2) Are we forgetting about apps? The best hardware in the world is useless unless there are apps to make it sing. A $200 tablet can surf the web just as good as the playbook.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
1) Battery life IS a big deal
2) Are we forgetting about apps? The best hardware in the world is useless unless there are apps to make it sing. A $200 tablet can surf the web just as good as the playbook.
the vj
Apr 6, 02:53 PM
I remember when I was a kid and I asked my father for a toy and he came with a different one... I was the saddest kid on earth.
I believe that who ever asked for an iPad and got a Motorola would feel the same.
(Dad, I love you)
I believe that who ever asked for an iPad and got a Motorola would feel the same.
(Dad, I love you)
Huntn
Mar 18, 08:59 PM
Back in Ron Paul warned us about Barack Obama and the fact that his foreign policy would almost certainly essentially mirror that of the Democrats and Neo-Cons for the past 60 years.
I am very unhappy that Obama did not get us out of a state of War. Which pacifist do you plan on voting for this next time around?
I am very unhappy that Obama did not get us out of a state of War. Which pacifist do you plan on voting for this next time around?
NY Guitarist
Apr 12, 10:20 AM
Here's what I am hearing:
http://applecritictv.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-final-cut-pro.html
This was a very good blog post.
http://applecritictv.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-final-cut-pro.html
This was a very good blog post.
AppleJustWorks
Aug 26, 09:56 AM
California, it's replies like this that pisses switchers off, even seasones mac users get upset with these replies. What the hell is Rev A?. What idiot argument is this?. That's it ok for apple to make a ****ed-up product cause it's the first version?. What?.. apple just started making computers that they don't know how to make quality products until they already made the first version?. Apple should be horrified at your suggestion. Imagine if no one bought Rev A (whatever the **** that means) machines from Apple. APPLE WOULD GO BROKE!!. There's always Rev A machines when it comes to computers dude. The next mac pro upgrade will use a new processor, faster, new video, more ram, newer harddrive and becomes rev A cause THEY ARE THE FIRST APPLE PRODUCTS TO USE THE NEW UPGRADED PROCESSOR, NEW HARDDIVE, ETC. Really, stop with this nonsense. You are like the 10th idiotic apple fan I have read using this dumb argument.
Right on. I made the same argument to someone on a different forum, and it's just amazing how fanboy mac users concoct these elaborate theories of why apple screwing up is acceptable.
The point is, by simple logic, yes, the following revisions of a product tend to be more reliable because they've had time to address issues, but no, that doesn't mean (anyone) shouldn't buy a machine purely because of it's revision number. If that was the case, then Apple would be out of business. Period.
Right on. I made the same argument to someone on a different forum, and it's just amazing how fanboy mac users concoct these elaborate theories of why apple screwing up is acceptable.
The point is, by simple logic, yes, the following revisions of a product tend to be more reliable because they've had time to address issues, but no, that doesn't mean (anyone) shouldn't buy a machine purely because of it's revision number. If that was the case, then Apple would be out of business. Period.
hayesk
Mar 26, 02:36 PM
I tested Lion, and removed it after a month. Not buying it. I'll use Snow Leopard, it's the best OS so far. I'll see the one after Lion, maybe there will be something interesting.
This is the problem of non-developers getting access to software that is not intended for the public. People install it, expecting it to have all the stability and features of the final version and get disappointed when it doesn't. And people wonder why Apple is all about secrecy and NDAs.
You shouldn't have installed it in the first place. Look at it when it is released and make your decision.
This is the problem of non-developers getting access to software that is not intended for the public. People install it, expecting it to have all the stability and features of the final version and get disappointed when it doesn't. And people wonder why Apple is all about secrecy and NDAs.
You shouldn't have installed it in the first place. Look at it when it is released and make your decision.
Tomaz
Aug 7, 04:20 PM
I wouldn't say this was copying. A way to backup and restore your files is just common sense. Even if Microsoft didn't have a restore feature, Apple would have come up with it anyway.
If Apple had had that feature for years and MS would include it into Vista now, you'd call it copying, no !? ;)
If Apple had had that feature for years and MS would include it into Vista now, you'd call it copying, no !? ;)
gnasher729
Jul 14, 05:20 PM
A 2.66 Ghz Woodcrest will probably be faster than a 2.93Ghz Conroe. A 1.83Ghz Yonah is faster than a 3.2Ghz Pentium, right?;)
Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest all use Intel's new "Core Microarchitecture" (a bit confusing: Core Duo does _not_ use "Core Microarchitecture", it is basically an improved Pentium III. The Core 2 Duo chips use Core Microarchitecture).
All three chips produce the same performance at the same clockspeed. Cache size may make a difference, but the Conroe models starting at 2.4 GHz all have the large 4 MB cache. So a single 2.66 GHz Woodcrest will be substantially slower than a 2.93 GHz Conroe. Not that it matters; the 2.93 GHz Conroe is extremely overpriced and unlikely to be used in any Macintosh.
I personally would expect 2.0GHz Conroe, 2.66 GHz Conroe, 2 x 2 GHz Woodcrest and 2 x 2.66 GHz Woodcrest for a wide range from cheap to maximum performance.
Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest all use Intel's new "Core Microarchitecture" (a bit confusing: Core Duo does _not_ use "Core Microarchitecture", it is basically an improved Pentium III. The Core 2 Duo chips use Core Microarchitecture).
All three chips produce the same performance at the same clockspeed. Cache size may make a difference, but the Conroe models starting at 2.4 GHz all have the large 4 MB cache. So a single 2.66 GHz Woodcrest will be substantially slower than a 2.93 GHz Conroe. Not that it matters; the 2.93 GHz Conroe is extremely overpriced and unlikely to be used in any Macintosh.
I personally would expect 2.0GHz Conroe, 2.66 GHz Conroe, 2 x 2 GHz Woodcrest and 2 x 2.66 GHz Woodcrest for a wide range from cheap to maximum performance.
heels98
Sep 19, 07:08 AM
Sure, some people will always have a need for the fastest computer in the world. Some will find themselves stressing over the slightest increase in processor performance, screen resolution, graphics memory, whatever. No one here doubts that. But most of those people spend much more time working than reading and posting on internet message boards. Professionals use the tools that for them get the job done. I feel that the main point of using the Mac is lost on most PC users, and especially on those that cry out for the absolute fastest turbo-charged, slick, top benchmark machines. Maybe our processors are "outdated," but Mac OS X is not, nor is the work that I see coming from Mac professionals inferior to those with faster computers. The fact that OS X makes doing our jobs more elegant and faster, is far more important than whose processor is the fastest, or as Freud would put, whose >>>> is bigger.:o
kntgsp
Mar 22, 07:29 PM
If Samsung had left it as vanilla Android they would've had a day one sale from me. Touchwiz is an abortion of programming. It's horrendous.
I'll wait to see how easily vanilla ROMs can be ported over or if it winds up being the epic clusterf**k that the Galaxy S was. Couldn't get rid of Touchwiz even if you tried. Using a different launcher and it still ran in the background eating resources. Remove it entirely? The thing kernel panicked and rebooted in an endless loop.
Samsung still doesn't get it. VANILLA Android. You want to offer your own launcher and apps as an alternative? Great. Offer them in the marketplace or from your website. Otherwise take your Touchwiz, and your ridiculous RFS file format and cram it up your mother's box. That whole software department at Samsung just needs to be exterminated.
Christ I am so sick of them taking fantastic hardware and absolutely ruining it by using proprietary file formats and frankenstein versions of Android. I do get a kick out of their 10.1" model being both thinner and lighter than the 9.7" Ipad2 though. That will undoubtedly have the apple apologists out en masse.
I'll wait to see how easily vanilla ROMs can be ported over or if it winds up being the epic clusterf**k that the Galaxy S was. Couldn't get rid of Touchwiz even if you tried. Using a different launcher and it still ran in the background eating resources. Remove it entirely? The thing kernel panicked and rebooted in an endless loop.
Samsung still doesn't get it. VANILLA Android. You want to offer your own launcher and apps as an alternative? Great. Offer them in the marketplace or from your website. Otherwise take your Touchwiz, and your ridiculous RFS file format and cram it up your mother's box. That whole software department at Samsung just needs to be exterminated.
Christ I am so sick of them taking fantastic hardware and absolutely ruining it by using proprietary file formats and frankenstein versions of Android. I do get a kick out of their 10.1" model being both thinner and lighter than the 9.7" Ipad2 though. That will undoubtedly have the apple apologists out en masse.
Multimedia
Jul 15, 05:15 AM
I prefer the Simpsons' parody of that cartoon:
"...and I'll make Ted Kennedy pay, if he fights back I'll say that he's gay."
But seriously, the $1799 price point is a step in the right direction. If we could get it down to $1599 or <gasp> $1499, then that would be the de facto mini tower so many have clamored for. I would like a redesigned case, but that'll come eventually.
Sometimes the right price can make a person forget about what might have been.We have that already on the Refurbished page. :) Dual Core 2GHz G5 is only $1699 there. Quad only $2799. So your dream of $1499 will come when the 2GHz Core 2 Duo Mac Pro hits the refurb page - which, according to recent history, should happen before Christmas.I believe that the MacBook was on the refurb page in around 3-4 weeks. The iMac Core Duo took AGES though.Yes MacBook broke the speed record for shift to the refurb page in record time. Right now everything is up there except the 17" MacBook Pros. My Quad made it there in only 3 months last Winter.
"...and I'll make Ted Kennedy pay, if he fights back I'll say that he's gay."
But seriously, the $1799 price point is a step in the right direction. If we could get it down to $1599 or <gasp> $1499, then that would be the de facto mini tower so many have clamored for. I would like a redesigned case, but that'll come eventually.
Sometimes the right price can make a person forget about what might have been.We have that already on the Refurbished page. :) Dual Core 2GHz G5 is only $1699 there. Quad only $2799. So your dream of $1499 will come when the 2GHz Core 2 Duo Mac Pro hits the refurb page - which, according to recent history, should happen before Christmas.I believe that the MacBook was on the refurb page in around 3-4 weeks. The iMac Core Duo took AGES though.Yes MacBook broke the speed record for shift to the refurb page in record time. Right now everything is up there except the 17" MacBook Pros. My Quad made it there in only 3 months last Winter.
macgeek2005
Aug 19, 06:08 PM
I'm sure you know this. But just a reminder that you would be dealing with an extremely fragile and tricky upgrade process that could destroy your motherboard or fry the processor without the latest cooling system from Apple. Just my own caution against attempting this. Not worth the risk I think. There will be a better video card with the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro as well as other changes to the system fixing bugs discovered between now and then. Too many changes in the works for me to want to fool with such a complex system.
You make me mad you know that? All over the boards I see your posts with your weird avatar and your extremely critical opinions on everything. Why don't you wait until 2010 and get a 32 core system from intel. Why don't you wait until nobody uses computers anymore. This is just a phase in the history of the world. There will be something beyond computers in another few hundred years. Why buy a computer if it'll be obsolete at some point?
Professional users are out there using G5 towers and even G4's. They're using MacBook Pro's, which are much less powerfull than the Quad Mac Pro right now. I mean, what's your problem? Will there ever be a computer good enough for you?
There are people like you out there, but i've never met a case as extreme as you. I mean, you even went as far as to say that theres very little you can do with 4 cores. Where the **** did you pull that from? Actually, don't answer that question.
I think that you're secretly some evil worker from microsoft trying to stall people from buying Mac Pro's!
If everyone could all of a sudden comprehend exactly how powerful the current machines are, anyone who was thinking of buying one, would buy one.
But you're out here with your "Clovertown is better" and your "Bugs must be worked out" and your this and your that.
You know what? I have three Rev. A iMac Core Duo's in my house, and not a single one of them has had a bug, a crash, a freeze, or a problem of any sort. Rev. A.
HMMM. Maybe Apple does know how to do Rev. A. Just sometimes? Maybe? Perhaps?
Especially with their Quad Xeon 64 Bit Workstation which they've been working on for over a year?
Do you realise that in the procces of making these computers they work out the bugs themselves? They use the computers, and find all the bugs possible, and work them out?
What do you think all those apple workers have been doing for the last year and a half, if not working out bugs on their machines?
For anyone out there who has been needlessly influenced by this guy to wait for a system that will only be outdated by the one that will come after it, please uninfluence yourself, and buy the stupid computer that you want, when you want it.
Jeeshh!!
You make me mad you know that? All over the boards I see your posts with your weird avatar and your extremely critical opinions on everything. Why don't you wait until 2010 and get a 32 core system from intel. Why don't you wait until nobody uses computers anymore. This is just a phase in the history of the world. There will be something beyond computers in another few hundred years. Why buy a computer if it'll be obsolete at some point?
Professional users are out there using G5 towers and even G4's. They're using MacBook Pro's, which are much less powerfull than the Quad Mac Pro right now. I mean, what's your problem? Will there ever be a computer good enough for you?
There are people like you out there, but i've never met a case as extreme as you. I mean, you even went as far as to say that theres very little you can do with 4 cores. Where the **** did you pull that from? Actually, don't answer that question.
I think that you're secretly some evil worker from microsoft trying to stall people from buying Mac Pro's!
If everyone could all of a sudden comprehend exactly how powerful the current machines are, anyone who was thinking of buying one, would buy one.
But you're out here with your "Clovertown is better" and your "Bugs must be worked out" and your this and your that.
You know what? I have three Rev. A iMac Core Duo's in my house, and not a single one of them has had a bug, a crash, a freeze, or a problem of any sort. Rev. A.
HMMM. Maybe Apple does know how to do Rev. A. Just sometimes? Maybe? Perhaps?
Especially with their Quad Xeon 64 Bit Workstation which they've been working on for over a year?
Do you realise that in the procces of making these computers they work out the bugs themselves? They use the computers, and find all the bugs possible, and work them out?
What do you think all those apple workers have been doing for the last year and a half, if not working out bugs on their machines?
For anyone out there who has been needlessly influenced by this guy to wait for a system that will only be outdated by the one that will come after it, please uninfluence yourself, and buy the stupid computer that you want, when you want it.
Jeeshh!!
Dalton63841
Apr 27, 09:46 AM
Barack Husein Obama was born in Kenya! Now we have proof!!! Look, it says it right there!! :rolleyes:
Im really hoping the odd smiley means you are joking, and not that you just don't know how to read a birth certificate.
EDIT: LOL I get it...His father has the same name.
Im really hoping the odd smiley means you are joking, and not that you just don't know how to read a birth certificate.
EDIT: LOL I get it...His father has the same name.
Xenious
Jul 14, 05:27 PM
Dual drive slots are cool, but the design is boring. Don't get me wrong I love my G5 powermac I was just hoping for a new or different design for the next ones...Maybe the same but square or smaller or something. Oh well it doesn't matter I'm still buying. :)
Luph67
Apr 6, 10:51 AM
What is the obsession with back-lit keys?
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
guzhogi
Jul 20, 10:07 AM
First of all, you assume that it is possible to make "one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores". I don't think it is possible to do this (at least not with the x86 architecture using today's technology.)
But assuming such a chip exists, the answer depends on what kind of efficiency you're thinking of.
If you mean computational efficiency (meaning the most useful processing per clock-tick), then a single big core will do better. This is because single-threaded apps will be able to use the full power (whereas multiple threads are needed to take advantagte of multiple cores.) Also, the operating system can get rid of the overhead that is needed to keep software running on the multiple cores from stepping on each other.
If you mean energy efficiency (amount of processing per watt of electricity consumed), then it could go either way, depending on how the chips are made. But given today's manufacturing processes and the non-linear power curve that we see as clock speeds are increased, the multiple-core solution will almost definitely use less power.
I remember hearing about how it is possible to make multiple cores act like one (Idon't remember where I heard this). Anyways, whether 8 cores acting separately or together like 1 big processor has an advantage depends on the program you use. If the program is multi-threaded, then the cores acting separately might have the advantage while single threaded apps will have an advantage if the cores are acting like one. However, many apps today won't see that much improvement either way (like a simple calculator, or solitare and word processing).
But assuming such a chip exists, the answer depends on what kind of efficiency you're thinking of.
If you mean computational efficiency (meaning the most useful processing per clock-tick), then a single big core will do better. This is because single-threaded apps will be able to use the full power (whereas multiple threads are needed to take advantagte of multiple cores.) Also, the operating system can get rid of the overhead that is needed to keep software running on the multiple cores from stepping on each other.
If you mean energy efficiency (amount of processing per watt of electricity consumed), then it could go either way, depending on how the chips are made. But given today's manufacturing processes and the non-linear power curve that we see as clock speeds are increased, the multiple-core solution will almost definitely use less power.
I remember hearing about how it is possible to make multiple cores act like one (Idon't remember where I heard this). Anyways, whether 8 cores acting separately or together like 1 big processor has an advantage depends on the program you use. If the program is multi-threaded, then the cores acting separately might have the advantage while single threaded apps will have an advantage if the cores are acting like one. However, many apps today won't see that much improvement either way (like a simple calculator, or solitare and word processing).
al2o3cr
Apr 25, 01:43 PM
Hope nobody tells these lawyers that anybody who can access the location data can also get at the address book and text messages - OMG PRIVACY VIOLATION!
skunk
Feb 28, 06:04 PM
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things.No, it's called "living a human lifestyle".
I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.Why should your hang-ups be of any relevance to anybody else? Perhaps you need to deal with your own perceptions instead of relying on some dusty tome to tell you what to think. You know that Plato was a repressed homosexual, don't you? He spent hours at the gymnasium ogling naked young men, and perhaps like S/Paul, spent a lot of effort telling other people how to love to expiate his guilty feelings.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage.You are extraordinarily keen to prescribe what other people should do. What's it got to do with you?
If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away.You sound like a real catch, but hey, what you choose to do is up to you.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.So, you assert that a married non-Christian couple can do nothing but fornicate? What an appallingly demeaning attitude! Do you regard any couple you meet as probable fornicators by default? Do you question them about whether they use birth control, or whether they were married, and if so whether it was in a Catholic church with the proper sacraments? You clearly swallow Catholic dogma hook, line and sinker, so choosing righteous friends must be a real PITA.
I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.Why should your hang-ups be of any relevance to anybody else? Perhaps you need to deal with your own perceptions instead of relying on some dusty tome to tell you what to think. You know that Plato was a repressed homosexual, don't you? He spent hours at the gymnasium ogling naked young men, and perhaps like S/Paul, spent a lot of effort telling other people how to love to expiate his guilty feelings.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage.You are extraordinarily keen to prescribe what other people should do. What's it got to do with you?
If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away.You sound like a real catch, but hey, what you choose to do is up to you.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.So, you assert that a married non-Christian couple can do nothing but fornicate? What an appallingly demeaning attitude! Do you regard any couple you meet as probable fornicators by default? Do you question them about whether they use birth control, or whether they were married, and if so whether it was in a Catholic church with the proper sacraments? You clearly swallow Catholic dogma hook, line and sinker, so choosing righteous friends must be a real PITA.
gerrycurl
Jul 14, 05:59 PM
the question still remains--will the powermacs be able to use standard, off the shelf, pc video cards?
i know that you couldn't do so in the power architecture due to the bios irregularities. now that they're using efi, does this still mean we have to buy mac based cards? because that's really the question nobody seems to ask and nobody seems to have an answer for.
what this new mac workstation will mean is the chance to upgrade your macs based on commodity parts. no more mac tax for hardware. i remember when the radeon 9700 was king, the price was around $299 for pc version and $399 for mac version.
think about this, the ability to upgrade processor, video card, and sound card without having to pay the apple tax.
that's what it really comes down to. the speculative "good" version of the mac pro has a so-so video card, but it's not really worth the $600 more just to get a 1800, i'd rather just get the 1600 and upgrade on my own.
i know that you couldn't do so in the power architecture due to the bios irregularities. now that they're using efi, does this still mean we have to buy mac based cards? because that's really the question nobody seems to ask and nobody seems to have an answer for.
what this new mac workstation will mean is the chance to upgrade your macs based on commodity parts. no more mac tax for hardware. i remember when the radeon 9700 was king, the price was around $299 for pc version and $399 for mac version.
think about this, the ability to upgrade processor, video card, and sound card without having to pay the apple tax.
that's what it really comes down to. the speculative "good" version of the mac pro has a so-so video card, but it's not really worth the $600 more just to get a 1800, i'd rather just get the 1600 and upgrade on my own.
THX1139
Aug 21, 02:09 AM
I stopped by the Apple store tonight to play with a Macpro. I'm getting ready to buy and thought I'd get some hands on experience to see how it performed with Finalcut Pro. I was especially interested in how it handles playback of uncompressed footage.
The store had a 2.6 hooked up to a 30"ACD. Everything on the machine was stock. I launched FCP and it appeared with a project already loaded (about 5 seconds). The project was a simple 20-30 second 720x480 NTSC clip of hockey game footage. I selected the clip and copied it to a new layer and threw a blend mode on it AND changed the speed to 85%. Next I copied and made another layer and changed the speed and offset it and changed the transparency to 80%. 3 layers total with the top two manipulated. I hit the render and it finished in about 30 seconds. :)
I know, not very scientific, but I just wanted to get a feel for how fast the Macpro would render manipulated footage. Anyhow, next I changed the output in project settings to "uncompressed" and hit render again. Again, it took less than a minute to render and the CPU usage in console was maxing out at only 42% per core.
Once the render completed, I hit the play button to see how the stock Macpro would handle playback of the uncompressed footage. It played for about 4 seconds then threw an error saying that frames were being dropped during playback. Not good. I was hoping that the Macpro would be able to play uncompressed footage from the timeline without 3rd party acceleration or setting up a raid. The error message suggested turning off RT effects (of which I did, but still had dropped frames) or get a faster drive. There was a couple other things the error suggested, but I can't remember at the moment. I wonder if having the ATI card would have made a difference? Not sure if FCP uses the GPU for playback, but I would think that should make a difference. Ram would probably help too. Anyone know what might be going on? Am I expecting too much out of this machine?
Sorry for sort of getting off topic. I thought this might be an appropriate area to post this; I wasn't feeling up to starting a new thread.
The store had a 2.6 hooked up to a 30"ACD. Everything on the machine was stock. I launched FCP and it appeared with a project already loaded (about 5 seconds). The project was a simple 20-30 second 720x480 NTSC clip of hockey game footage. I selected the clip and copied it to a new layer and threw a blend mode on it AND changed the speed to 85%. Next I copied and made another layer and changed the speed and offset it and changed the transparency to 80%. 3 layers total with the top two manipulated. I hit the render and it finished in about 30 seconds. :)
I know, not very scientific, but I just wanted to get a feel for how fast the Macpro would render manipulated footage. Anyhow, next I changed the output in project settings to "uncompressed" and hit render again. Again, it took less than a minute to render and the CPU usage in console was maxing out at only 42% per core.
Once the render completed, I hit the play button to see how the stock Macpro would handle playback of the uncompressed footage. It played for about 4 seconds then threw an error saying that frames were being dropped during playback. Not good. I was hoping that the Macpro would be able to play uncompressed footage from the timeline without 3rd party acceleration or setting up a raid. The error message suggested turning off RT effects (of which I did, but still had dropped frames) or get a faster drive. There was a couple other things the error suggested, but I can't remember at the moment. I wonder if having the ATI card would have made a difference? Not sure if FCP uses the GPU for playback, but I would think that should make a difference. Ram would probably help too. Anyone know what might be going on? Am I expecting too much out of this machine?
Sorry for sort of getting off topic. I thought this might be an appropriate area to post this; I wasn't feeling up to starting a new thread.
Benjamins
Mar 31, 02:43 PM
You could say the same thing about Apple though. The Apple fad will go away and the extremely closed ecosystem which seems to not be really developing much in terms of UI or having an actual roadmap could end iOS.
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
If Apple FAD goes away, where will Google copy from next?
You are delusional if you think Google is not building upon the Apple FAD.
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
If Apple FAD goes away, where will Google copy from next?
You are delusional if you think Google is not building upon the Apple FAD.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento