Abulia
Sep 20, 02:32 PM
I've read the various comments about problems with the updates with RAID 0. Can anyone confirm if the update goes ok on RAID 1? I would think it would since from a boot point of view they might as well be individual disks.
I would say it still wouldn't work, as the OS X RAID implementation is software RAID. Hence, OS X has to boot to get the RAID array working.
In the case of RAID 1 if it did work it might break the mirror (no big deal).
Give it a shot. Worse case it won't work; shouldn't affect your data at all.
I would say it still wouldn't work, as the OS X RAID implementation is software RAID. Hence, OS X has to boot to get the RAID array working.
In the case of RAID 1 if it did work it might break the mirror (no big deal).
Give it a shot. Worse case it won't work; shouldn't affect your data at all.
JeffDM
Sep 27, 09:51 PM
If LEOPARD doesnt arrive until spring...
They certainly didn't promise it for the fall. They left quite a window, didn't they say 1H07? Let them get it right with good testing. With earlier Tiger revisions, I just went back to 10.3 until they had enough things working right. This will also be the longest time between major revisions, so that's probably going to mean more minor revisions.
They certainly didn't promise it for the fall. They left quite a window, didn't they say 1H07? Let them get it right with good testing. With earlier Tiger revisions, I just went back to 10.3 until they had enough things working right. This will also be the longest time between major revisions, so that's probably going to mean more minor revisions.
MacBandit
Sep 14, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by King Cobra
verbose, do you ever give newbies a break with typos these days? :rolleyes: :D
Great posts, guys. Well worth reading. But I think some of you need to take a closer look at WHY MHz/GHz doesn't matter as much.
First of all, the Px does not have the Velocity Engine, and OS 10.1/2 uses it. There is a dramatic performance over the G4 (and especially later G3s) with 10.2, as the operating system is now more effeciant. Also, OS X takes advantage of dual processors to a certain degree (maybe an extra 50 percent or so). Finally, when you take a look at the new PowerMacs, you are looking at 4MB of L3 Cache (w/ dual 1.25GHz). The Px don't seem to have that (if any). So, basically, that would bring a 64-bit system (in terms of the P4) to about 4 or 5GHz right there.
Now, take a look at the PC. Sure, the PC has incredible boot time, is great for playing games, and has a quick OS. However, the P4 lacks the necessity of an effecient L1 Cache. I do not see how 4Kb will provide enough memory for the complex operations tha Macs can handle. So, instead of a 4.7GHz, you're looking at, maybe, 3.x or 4GHz, assuming, with this new chip, the L1 cache has remained unchanged.
First of all what do you consider great boot times? Not that this matters a lot. I have a new Dual Ghz/DDR and it starts from cold boot to login in screen in 27secs with 10.2 and from login to operating finder is nearly instantaneous.
Second of all as I have stated before the true reason Mhz doesn't matter is because something like %98 of all computer users are not power users these are the people that will go buy a new computer tomorrow and if there is a 2.8Ghz computer sitting next to a 800Mhz computer they couldn't care they're going to buy the cheap one. They don't even care how much ram it has. I know this because I went computer shopping with my boss for work(yes for a PC). He wanted my help. Well little help I was he bought the cheapest computer he could get with 64MB of Ram I suggested we upgrade it later and he agreed well that was 2 years ago still it sits with 64MB of RAM in it. Oh and I might add it still has all the stickers on the front of it. These people don't care about this stuff all it's used for is mail and the occasional websearch and most people are like this.
verbose, do you ever give newbies a break with typos these days? :rolleyes: :D
Great posts, guys. Well worth reading. But I think some of you need to take a closer look at WHY MHz/GHz doesn't matter as much.
First of all, the Px does not have the Velocity Engine, and OS 10.1/2 uses it. There is a dramatic performance over the G4 (and especially later G3s) with 10.2, as the operating system is now more effeciant. Also, OS X takes advantage of dual processors to a certain degree (maybe an extra 50 percent or so). Finally, when you take a look at the new PowerMacs, you are looking at 4MB of L3 Cache (w/ dual 1.25GHz). The Px don't seem to have that (if any). So, basically, that would bring a 64-bit system (in terms of the P4) to about 4 or 5GHz right there.
Now, take a look at the PC. Sure, the PC has incredible boot time, is great for playing games, and has a quick OS. However, the P4 lacks the necessity of an effecient L1 Cache. I do not see how 4Kb will provide enough memory for the complex operations tha Macs can handle. So, instead of a 4.7GHz, you're looking at, maybe, 3.x or 4GHz, assuming, with this new chip, the L1 cache has remained unchanged.
First of all what do you consider great boot times? Not that this matters a lot. I have a new Dual Ghz/DDR and it starts from cold boot to login in screen in 27secs with 10.2 and from login to operating finder is nearly instantaneous.
Second of all as I have stated before the true reason Mhz doesn't matter is because something like %98 of all computer users are not power users these are the people that will go buy a new computer tomorrow and if there is a 2.8Ghz computer sitting next to a 800Mhz computer they couldn't care they're going to buy the cheap one. They don't even care how much ram it has. I know this because I went computer shopping with my boss for work(yes for a PC). He wanted my help. Well little help I was he bought the cheapest computer he could get with 64MB of Ram I suggested we upgrade it later and he agreed well that was 2 years ago still it sits with 64MB of RAM in it. Oh and I might add it still has all the stickers on the front of it. These people don't care about this stuff all it's used for is mail and the occasional websearch and most people are like this.
barkmonster
Sep 14, 09:01 AM
If your Mac is slower than a PC for any reason on the same application it is because the software hasn't been optimized for the Mac. Write the software developer before you complain about the Mac speed. Get them to develop for Altivec. It makes a world of difference.
No chance.
Most applications that can take advantage of Altivec already do, there's a lot of processes that can't benefit from Altivec at all and that's where the G4 is getting beaten senseless.
Even Altivec itself is crippled by the bus speed.
The G4 achieves 1.3Gb/s on the dual 1Ghz G4 with the 167Mhz Front Side Bus.
Remembering that there's 8 bits in a byte and memory is 64 bit the Mb/s of the FSB works out as follows :
(100 / 3) x 5 = 166.666 this is just the precise way of calculating the bus speed
64 bit / 8 = 8 bytes
8 x 166.666Mhz = 1.333 GB/s
Remembering that 1.3Gb/s is the most the system controller can transfere to either CPU, altivec is hardly getting any of the juice it needs at all with the current G4 design.
Assuming we're still talking about that dual Ghz G4, Altvec works out like this :
(128 / 8) x 1000Mhz = 15.625 Gb/s
It's only getting a measly 1.3Gb/s, hardly what it needs.
Plus both CPUs and both Altivec units have to share the same 167Mhz FSB to transfere data to and from main memory.
Even though the L2 and L3 cache have a lot to play in getting around the FSB bottleneck, that's 1.3Gb/s of bandwidth shared between cpus and SiMD units that require a total of 33.85Mb/s.
If you're working on data that's less than 256K it fits in the L2 cache and there's no bottleneck, anything bigger than that and it's either got to fit in the L3 which is half the required bandwidth or it's coming from main system memory with that tiny 1.3Mb/s of bandwidth.
No chance.
Most applications that can take advantage of Altivec already do, there's a lot of processes that can't benefit from Altivec at all and that's where the G4 is getting beaten senseless.
Even Altivec itself is crippled by the bus speed.
The G4 achieves 1.3Gb/s on the dual 1Ghz G4 with the 167Mhz Front Side Bus.
Remembering that there's 8 bits in a byte and memory is 64 bit the Mb/s of the FSB works out as follows :
(100 / 3) x 5 = 166.666 this is just the precise way of calculating the bus speed
64 bit / 8 = 8 bytes
8 x 166.666Mhz = 1.333 GB/s
Remembering that 1.3Gb/s is the most the system controller can transfere to either CPU, altivec is hardly getting any of the juice it needs at all with the current G4 design.
Assuming we're still talking about that dual Ghz G4, Altvec works out like this :
(128 / 8) x 1000Mhz = 15.625 Gb/s
It's only getting a measly 1.3Gb/s, hardly what it needs.
Plus both CPUs and both Altivec units have to share the same 167Mhz FSB to transfere data to and from main memory.
Even though the L2 and L3 cache have a lot to play in getting around the FSB bottleneck, that's 1.3Gb/s of bandwidth shared between cpus and SiMD units that require a total of 33.85Mb/s.
If you're working on data that's less than 256K it fits in the L2 cache and there's no bottleneck, anything bigger than that and it's either got to fit in the L3 which is half the required bandwidth or it's coming from main system memory with that tiny 1.3Mb/s of bandwidth.
more...
talmy
Mar 24, 09:15 AM
Will the Lion Server allow me to keep one set of data accessible from my iMac & MBP so they are basically working with only one set of files? I don't want to migrate data from my iMac to my new MBP because between the iLife projects I don't want them living on separate machines... I simply want to close iMovie or excel for example and pick right up where I left up on the MBP once I'm upstairs! I set up file sharing and accessing the iPhoto library from the iMac takes forever to load, nevermind the loss of certain features like location tagging and I've yet to get iMovie to open the iMac library without having it crash. I know I sound like an total moron here, but the good news is when it comes to computers, I am, and I've accepted that.;)
It doesn't take Lion Server, any Mac will do, to have one set of files. But you may have a performance loss especially if you are using Wifi. With iMovie I moved the local iMovie Projects and iMovie Events folders to the server and created an alias to them on the local systems where the folders used to be. I don't use iPhoto, but if you start iPhoto holding down the option key you can specify an alternate iPhoto library location. iTunes seems to be a can of worms -- I haven't found a satisfactory solution beyond sharing the music folders. Doesn't seem to be a way to have shared playlists or even update the databases across systems. Instead I use Plex for music/video/photo sharing across systems with just the Plex server program running on the server. Doesn't seem to be any issues with other programs from Apple that I occasionally use.
It doesn't take Lion Server, any Mac will do, to have one set of files. But you may have a performance loss especially if you are using Wifi. With iMovie I moved the local iMovie Projects and iMovie Events folders to the server and created an alias to them on the local systems where the folders used to be. I don't use iPhoto, but if you start iPhoto holding down the option key you can specify an alternate iPhoto library location. iTunes seems to be a can of worms -- I haven't found a satisfactory solution beyond sharing the music folders. Doesn't seem to be a way to have shared playlists or even update the databases across systems. Instead I use Plex for music/video/photo sharing across systems with just the Plex server program running on the server. Doesn't seem to be any issues with other programs from Apple that I occasionally use.
xUKHCx
Jan 9, 08:33 AM
As per the FAQ (http://guides.macrumors.com/Help:MacRumors_FAQ#What_do_I_do_about_annoying_ads.3F)
If you could post a screenshot and the URL the advert goes to then we can see about getting it removed.
MacRumors uses an advertising service that supplies ads from a pool. We do not select the specific ads shown or the specific advertisers who participate.
If you find a particular ad especially annoying (e.g., an ad that is oversized, obscures the page, moves around, or has sound), let us know by posting a screenshot in our Site and Forum Feedback forum and telling us the URL it links to. Using this information we can ask to have it removed from the ad pool.
If you find all ads annoying, remember that ads support the site and allow us to provide free news, rumors, and discussion, and that ads are suppressed for paid members. See How do I contribute to MacRumors.com? above.
If you could post a screenshot and the URL the advert goes to then we can see about getting it removed.
MacRumors uses an advertising service that supplies ads from a pool. We do not select the specific ads shown or the specific advertisers who participate.
If you find a particular ad especially annoying (e.g., an ad that is oversized, obscures the page, moves around, or has sound), let us know by posting a screenshot in our Site and Forum Feedback forum and telling us the URL it links to. Using this information we can ask to have it removed from the ad pool.
If you find all ads annoying, remember that ads support the site and allow us to provide free news, rumors, and discussion, and that ads are suppressed for paid members. See How do I contribute to MacRumors.com? above.
more...
~Shard~
Oct 26, 12:56 PM
No PowerPC version? Ouch. Lets hope that's not a growing trend for all you golden oldies out there :p
Yeah, I knew this was inevitable. (I'm running a 1.25 GHz G4 iMac.) That being said, for the applications I use (and this won't be one of them), I honestly don't see myself being forced to buy an Intel machine for a loooong time. Just because Adobe has decided to rpoceed in this manner doesn't mean other companies will follow suit. And you can bet that Apple definitely won't, at least not for a few more years. Heck, Classic was supported until what, last year essentially? And the G3 machines up until Leopard? ;) :cool:
Yeah, I knew this was inevitable. (I'm running a 1.25 GHz G4 iMac.) That being said, for the applications I use (and this won't be one of them), I honestly don't see myself being forced to buy an Intel machine for a loooong time. Just because Adobe has decided to rpoceed in this manner doesn't mean other companies will follow suit. And you can bet that Apple definitely won't, at least not for a few more years. Heck, Classic was supported until what, last year essentially? And the G3 machines up until Leopard? ;) :cool:
MontyZ
Jun 3, 02:53 AM
So you were seriously interseted in a widget about folding laundry? :p :D ;)
Hell yea!!
Hell yea!!
more...
blacktape242
Feb 18, 04:58 PM
Or how about the lack of pictures? This had photo op written all over it, but we the taxpayer only get one picture? I think the number of pictures were limited due to Steve Jobs current condition.
i like that quote "but we the taxpayer only get one"? :p
us tax payers are ALWAYS getting screwed! lol
i like that quote "but we the taxpayer only get one"? :p
us tax payers are ALWAYS getting screwed! lol
maclaptop
Apr 27, 12:47 AM
Coming soon to a theater near you, on a "Magical & Revolutionary" NEW technology by Apple: DVD
HA... HA... HA...
HA... HA... HA...
more...
Jelite
Nov 17, 08:21 PM
That's some good initiative, maybe next time he can do it without stolen goods and earn back the money he's going to lose from the impending court case.
t0rr3s
Feb 19, 03:18 AM
I am thinner than Steve Jobs. How long do I have left?
You're already dead. You only appear on forums. Go run naked in the streets. No one will able to see you. ;)
You're already dead. You only appear on forums. Go run naked in the streets. No one will able to see you. ;)
more...
3247
Jun 22, 09:18 AM
Wow � sounds like USB 1.0 speeds. Here comes the past!That's guaranteed write speed. Peek speeds are higher, much higher.
retroactiv
Mar 23, 01:29 PM
Why anyone would be surprised by this move is beyond me. It makes sense for all parties involved.
Apple makes $4 on each product sold, and manufacturers are able to add a feature that most people have the ability to actually use and will want.
It's a win-win.
Apple makes $4 on each product sold, and manufacturers are able to add a feature that most people have the ability to actually use and will want.
It's a win-win.
more...
Sensamic
Apr 7, 04:55 PM
This dock means that the future iPhones will sync throught thunderbolt with macs and with usb 3.0 for pcs!!! I guess thins means macs wont come with usb 3.0, so maybe an adapter would come out sometime...
I repeat: sync to macs with thunderbolt and sync to pcs with usb 3.0!!
I repeat: sync to macs with thunderbolt and sync to pcs with usb 3.0!!
mdgm
May 6, 07:31 AM
You're welcome. Hope you like your SSD upgrade. You may wish to take a look at http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1125400
Some older Mac Minis can have the CPU upgraded, but on both 09 Minis (they are very, very similar) the CPUs are definitely soldered on. This kind of info would be shown in a teardown of a Mac (these tend to be done fairly quickly after a new model is released)
Some older Mac Minis can have the CPU upgraded, but on both 09 Minis (they are very, very similar) the CPUs are definitely soldered on. This kind of info would be shown in a teardown of a Mac (these tend to be done fairly quickly after a new model is released)
more...
twoodcc
Mar 8, 09:36 PM
thanks for the screenshots! i'm glad that lion server is included in lion. more people will use it, since it comes with lion.
Plymouthbreezer
Sep 17, 03:23 PM
She obviously seems kinda creeped out. I'd give up.
On the last ditch effort, you could ask her to clean your 'Pods. But that might not go so well.
On the last ditch effort, you could ask her to clean your 'Pods. But that might not go so well.
jettredmont
Oct 26, 04:57 PM
Of course I can see the other side of this. Writing universal apps is not just a matter of "checking a box" in XCode; despite what I've heard some non-coders say on the subject.
Umm, I'm far from a non-coder. Writing a new app is very much an issue of "checking a box" in XCode. The problems come in when dealing with a years-old code base, much of which has embedded processor assumptions (ranging from hand-tweaked assembly to direct vector calls to assumptions on byte order).
New code, though, you know that you have to support multiple CPU architectures and so you call htons for your byte ordering and use vector libraries rather than direct calls; the sole remaining issue is hand-tweaked assembly, which should be significantly less than 1% of your overall application code especially if you are putting out a new product (you typically don't have enough knowledge to find the bottlenecks where going straight down to the metal is required until your app has been out in users' hands for a while). With all that absorbed in "the process", the only thing left is, yes, checking the box in XCode to generate the UB version of your app.
There's a bit more involved at the compile stage if you want to support both UB and older OS versions (Panther, Jaguar), but it's a lot easier to tell your customers that they have to upgrade to Tiger on their old G4s and G5s than to tell them they have to buy a whole new machine!
Umm, I'm far from a non-coder. Writing a new app is very much an issue of "checking a box" in XCode. The problems come in when dealing with a years-old code base, much of which has embedded processor assumptions (ranging from hand-tweaked assembly to direct vector calls to assumptions on byte order).
New code, though, you know that you have to support multiple CPU architectures and so you call htons for your byte ordering and use vector libraries rather than direct calls; the sole remaining issue is hand-tweaked assembly, which should be significantly less than 1% of your overall application code especially if you are putting out a new product (you typically don't have enough knowledge to find the bottlenecks where going straight down to the metal is required until your app has been out in users' hands for a while). With all that absorbed in "the process", the only thing left is, yes, checking the box in XCode to generate the UB version of your app.
There's a bit more involved at the compile stage if you want to support both UB and older OS versions (Panther, Jaguar), but it's a lot easier to tell your customers that they have to upgrade to Tiger on their old G4s and G5s than to tell them they have to buy a whole new machine!
Hurd111
Mar 4, 11:40 PM
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/5756/picture2ra.jpg
bigandy
Sep 19, 04:25 PM
Hopefully this will address the issues some users have seen with the Mac Pro apparently not being able to boot beyond a black screen when using the XP disc to boot from. Although I would think that is more an issue of GFX than firmware on the Mac Pro...maybe they're the same thing!
You can't boot XP from CD on a Mac. You can't you can't you can't. The Mac boots using EFI, which XP doesn't support.
You need to use Boot Camp to install it, as legacy BIOS emulation has to be loaded specifically for XP.
You can't boot XP from CD on a Mac. You can't you can't you can't. The Mac boots using EFI, which XP doesn't support.
You need to use Boot Camp to install it, as legacy BIOS emulation has to be loaded specifically for XP.
fixyourthinking
Oct 17, 02:35 PM
I wrote a guide on my blog about how to get out of a cellphone contract when the iPhone is released. Enjoy (if you care to):
http://fixyourthinking.com/2006/10/how-to-get-out-of-cell-phone-contract.html;)
http://fixyourthinking.com/2006/10/how-to-get-out-of-cell-phone-contract.html;)
realjd
Mar 13, 11:17 AM
My wife (AT&T 3GS) had a 7AM alarm set for this morning. It did not go off like it was supposed to. She was woken up by the 30 minute warning ding for her 8AM calendar entry which apparently did adjust properly. Her phone time was correct, the alarm just didn't go off.
canucksfan88
Mar 17, 01:51 AM
129.4/L Regular
489.83/US Gal...
dont you just love vancouver =(
489.83/US Gal...
dont you just love vancouver =(
No comments:
Post a Comment