NoSmokingBandit
Sep 1, 11:15 AM
Idk, that just doesnt sound right...
They have higher-res models from the GT4/GTPSP artists (everything 3d is made with super high poly counts then downgraded as the game's engine requires) so i dont understand why they would use the low poly models from GT4 when it would take just as much time to export a higher res model from Maya.
Time will tell i suppose, but it just doesnt make sense for them to gimp standard cars for no reason.
They have higher-res models from the GT4/GTPSP artists (everything 3d is made with super high poly counts then downgraded as the game's engine requires) so i dont understand why they would use the low poly models from GT4 when it would take just as much time to export a higher res model from Maya.
Time will tell i suppose, but it just doesnt make sense for them to gimp standard cars for no reason.
Benjamins
Mar 31, 07:11 PM
That, right there, is one of the reasons why the Apple community is widely mocked. You should be ashamed of yourself. A complete lack of understanding on the most basic principles of technology.
And Google fanboys still can't tell the difference between "Open", "Standard", "Free", "Open source" and "Proprietary". So I'd say those who do the mocking are not exactly all the bright either.
And Google fanboys still can't tell the difference between "Open", "Standard", "Free", "Open source" and "Proprietary". So I'd say those who do the mocking are not exactly all the bright either.
digitalbiker
Aug 25, 03:31 PM
Over the years I have bought a lot of computers for my business from a lot of different venders. To be honest Apple hardware support has never impressed me! :mad: I have actually had much better support from Dell than from Apple.
As far as .Mac goes it is one of the most poorly supported systems I have ever used in my life. They have a lousey limited faq sheet, common problems, email support is pitiful, and they don't take voice support. .Mac is a joke for $100.00 a year.
In general Apple's entire help system in OS X sucks. Searchs within the context of an application gives you all kinds of crap from every application on the system. Also there is no depth to the system. If your problem isn't the most elementary problem possible (99% of which you can figure out yourself) then it won't be in any of the help files.
As far as .Mac goes it is one of the most poorly supported systems I have ever used in my life. They have a lousey limited faq sheet, common problems, email support is pitiful, and they don't take voice support. .Mac is a joke for $100.00 a year.
In general Apple's entire help system in OS X sucks. Searchs within the context of an application gives you all kinds of crap from every application on the system. Also there is no depth to the system. If your problem isn't the most elementary problem possible (99% of which you can figure out yourself) then it won't be in any of the help files.
sgibson
Mar 31, 02:38 PM
You keep using that word� (http://cl.ly/0X032o272d2a3G1T1K3D)
gnasher729
Aug 17, 05:32 AM
They are comparing a 2 generations old G5 (Dual 2,5) versus a new Intel (Quad 2,6) which is not even the fastest out there. What kind of comparison is that?
If you want to know what is the fastest Mac, the comparison is no good. If you want to know whether you should upgrade your machine, the comparison makes a lot of sense. First, the 2.66 GHz Quad has the best price/performance ratio. If you start with the 2.0 GHz, you get 666 MHz more for $300, then you get another 333 MHz for a mere $800. So if you want to upgrade, the 2.66 is _the_ machine to buy. Second, there will be much less difference between a Quad G5 and a Quad Xeon. On performance critical Rosetta applications (like Photoshop) the Quad G5 will be stronger. In that case, it doesn't matter how much stronger - you won't upgrade, that is all that matters. But if you have a dual G5, then the question whether to upgrade or not is really interesting.
And we need to know whether apps use four cores or not. In many cases, changing from two threads to four threads is very easy (that is if all the threads to the same work; it is much harder if the threads do different work), but the app uses only two threads because most machines had only two CPUs. As an example, early versions of Handbrake didn't gain anything from Quad G5s; the CPUs were 50% idle all the time. People complained, and it was changed. The same thing will happen again, especially since _all_ Mac Pros have four cores.
If you want to know what is the fastest Mac, the comparison is no good. If you want to know whether you should upgrade your machine, the comparison makes a lot of sense. First, the 2.66 GHz Quad has the best price/performance ratio. If you start with the 2.0 GHz, you get 666 MHz more for $300, then you get another 333 MHz for a mere $800. So if you want to upgrade, the 2.66 is _the_ machine to buy. Second, there will be much less difference between a Quad G5 and a Quad Xeon. On performance critical Rosetta applications (like Photoshop) the Quad G5 will be stronger. In that case, it doesn't matter how much stronger - you won't upgrade, that is all that matters. But if you have a dual G5, then the question whether to upgrade or not is really interesting.
And we need to know whether apps use four cores or not. In many cases, changing from two threads to four threads is very easy (that is if all the threads to the same work; it is much harder if the threads do different work), but the app uses only two threads because most machines had only two CPUs. As an example, early versions of Handbrake didn't gain anything from Quad G5s; the CPUs were 50% idle all the time. People complained, and it was changed. The same thing will happen again, especially since _all_ Mac Pros have four cores.
appleguy123
Feb 28, 08:34 PM
I said "Both cases are untreatable."
Very sorry.
I have dyslexia, so I read sentences in my head, not words. When the words fit, my brain just makes that model of what it thinks the text said.
Sorry for getting mad. :o
Very sorry.
I have dyslexia, so I read sentences in my head, not words. When the words fit, my brain just makes that model of what it thinks the text said.
Sorry for getting mad. :o
Pro31
Mar 31, 04:36 PM
Maybe they should have thought of focusing on integration a little more than putting out a phone every week.
mwswami
Jul 21, 01:31 PM
I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
Hey Multimedia, just curious, I wonder what's your current (something you want to use for the next 1-2 years) idea of the ultimate machine wrt number of Cores, Memory, Storage, etc. And, how much are you willing to pay for it?
Hey Multimedia, just curious, I wonder what's your current (something you want to use for the next 1-2 years) idea of the ultimate machine wrt number of Cores, Memory, Storage, etc. And, how much are you willing to pay for it?
daneoni
Aug 25, 08:26 PM
Right. Because the whole "if your battery's serial number falls within this range, this range, or this range" concept was so terribly difficult to grasp.
No, because different versions of the ranges were initially posted only recently has it been clarified...get with the program and stop trying to be a smartass
No, because different versions of the ranges were initially posted only recently has it been clarified...get with the program and stop trying to be a smartass
SevenInchScrew
Aug 12, 11:00 PM
but you do care. you are pointing out that you care by what you just typed. if you count the prologues, you get over 57M sold.
You originally said...
so either way, there's only 4 versions of the game out. at over 57 million copies sold, i'd say they sold a fair few.
...which as I've said, a few times now, is incorrect. If you only count 4 games, as you originally said in that quote, that only totals 46M. And besides, if you check that link I originally provided, which is FROM POLYPHONY THEMSELVES, you would see that the total worldwide is only 56M. At least if you're going to quote the number in the wrong context, use the right number.
i disagree. let's bring math into the equation, since you seem to have missed it.
100,000,000/15 = 6,666,667.
57,000,000/8 = 7,125,000.
so GT has sold more copies per game.
Yay, let's play the "Twist The Numbers To Fit Our Needs" game....
100M / 15 years = 6.66M per year (Need for Speed)
56M / 13 years = 4.31M per year (Gran Turismo)
So yea, Need for Speed sells 50% more per year. YAY, math is fun!!!
well again this is your opinion...
It is. I don't like the direction Polyphony has taken the game. A game that used to be my favorite game. It disappoints me. Thus my frustration. I bought my PS3 with the hopes
but the intention of the car was for the game. how do you not see that? specifically for the game. in fact, it's named GT after the game
Can I buy one and drive it to work? No? Then it isn't real, intentions or not.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great?
Then according to you, Wii Play is the "greatest" video game of all time. Just reading that sentence should show you exactly why sales have very little to do with the quality of a game.
I keep saying this, but it seems people don't really understand it. Sales, which deal with numbers, are an objective measure of something. Greatness, which deals with personal preferences, is a subjective measure. You can think GT, or the iPhone, or Star Wars, or whatever, is great. That is fine, and a personal opinion. But, the sales of those things can't be "great". They can be large, and they are, but they can't be great.
And really, if someone uses the sales of something to qualify the greatness of it to themselves, that is kind of sad. Quite a few of my favorite things, which I consider great, didn't sell very well. That doesn't make them any less great to me.
But anyway, I don't even know why I'm arguing about this. I'm not even going to be buying this game. I'm done with this thread now. I'll just tip my hat, and bid you adieu.
You originally said...
so either way, there's only 4 versions of the game out. at over 57 million copies sold, i'd say they sold a fair few.
...which as I've said, a few times now, is incorrect. If you only count 4 games, as you originally said in that quote, that only totals 46M. And besides, if you check that link I originally provided, which is FROM POLYPHONY THEMSELVES, you would see that the total worldwide is only 56M. At least if you're going to quote the number in the wrong context, use the right number.
i disagree. let's bring math into the equation, since you seem to have missed it.
100,000,000/15 = 6,666,667.
57,000,000/8 = 7,125,000.
so GT has sold more copies per game.
Yay, let's play the "Twist The Numbers To Fit Our Needs" game....
100M / 15 years = 6.66M per year (Need for Speed)
56M / 13 years = 4.31M per year (Gran Turismo)
So yea, Need for Speed sells 50% more per year. YAY, math is fun!!!
well again this is your opinion...
It is. I don't like the direction Polyphony has taken the game. A game that used to be my favorite game. It disappoints me. Thus my frustration. I bought my PS3 with the hopes
but the intention of the car was for the game. how do you not see that? specifically for the game. in fact, it's named GT after the game
Can I buy one and drive it to work? No? Then it isn't real, intentions or not.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great?
Then according to you, Wii Play is the "greatest" video game of all time. Just reading that sentence should show you exactly why sales have very little to do with the quality of a game.
I keep saying this, but it seems people don't really understand it. Sales, which deal with numbers, are an objective measure of something. Greatness, which deals with personal preferences, is a subjective measure. You can think GT, or the iPhone, or Star Wars, or whatever, is great. That is fine, and a personal opinion. But, the sales of those things can't be "great". They can be large, and they are, but they can't be great.
And really, if someone uses the sales of something to qualify the greatness of it to themselves, that is kind of sad. Quite a few of my favorite things, which I consider great, didn't sell very well. That doesn't make them any less great to me.
But anyway, I don't even know why I'm arguing about this. I'm not even going to be buying this game. I'm done with this thread now. I'll just tip my hat, and bid you adieu.
dmkidd
Mar 26, 12:05 AM
Yes come on summer! Daddy is waiting!!
xfiftyfour
Aug 7, 11:21 AM
anyone see that the apple store online says "we'll be back soon - we are busy updating the store for you and will be back within the hour"?
Oh, and if it's already been said, I'm sorry - I'm not going back and reading through 10 pages... haha
Oh, and if it's already been said, I'm sorry - I'm not going back and reading through 10 pages... haha
shrimpdesign
Aug 7, 11:56 PM
does anyone see a potential for a security breach with the ichat feature that lets you take over someone's desktop? (the purpose is of course to collaborate or to help them fix a problem)
I think it's an invitation .. like "Come share my screen with me" not "Let me use your screen"
So basically you have to allow your screen to be shared with someone you don't trust ... which is generally a bad idea anyways.
If there's a problem, you can always unplug the computer.
I think it's an invitation .. like "Come share my screen with me" not "Let me use your screen"
So basically you have to allow your screen to be shared with someone you don't trust ... which is generally a bad idea anyways.
If there's a problem, you can always unplug the computer.
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
Unspeaked
Aug 11, 11:14 AM
G5 iPhones next Tuesday.
WiiDSmoker
Apr 19, 01:39 PM
Apple better not win this case and anyone who thinks that they should are a fool.
Bradley W
Aug 7, 10:24 PM
_
HecubusPro
Sep 19, 09:39 AM
I don't know how many times we have to go round and round with this here. I've been on MacRumors since '01 and it's always the same-old, same-old. It's not legitimate. It's "I-wantism." You have no basis to believe that a Rev B would be more "stabled and refined." That's a hope, backed by nothing -- and nothing Apple ever comments on, either. The bottom line is that you can hope if you want, and you can wait if you want, but to bash Apple for being slow on the trigger, and to make the argument that Meroms are amazing and Yonahs are crap is, frankly, horse manure. Like I said, 64 bit is pretty irrelevant for most users, and the speed and battery differences are quite negligible. And the argument that Apple is losing tons of sales to PC manufactuers is, frankly, laughable too.
Then please let those in here, myself included, make our own mistakes by buying the lastest iteration of the macbook pro. 'kay, thanks.
This isn't a "why are you waiting for rev-X." This is a thread about notebook refreshes and when they're going to happen.
That being said, I'm now waiting for Photokina. :)
Then please let those in here, myself included, make our own mistakes by buying the lastest iteration of the macbook pro. 'kay, thanks.
This isn't a "why are you waiting for rev-X." This is a thread about notebook refreshes and when they're going to happen.
That being said, I'm now waiting for Photokina. :)
GorillaPaws
Aug 7, 03:49 PM
I was impressed w/ the new iChat features. It will really help me troubleshoot w/ my mom, who is less-than-tech-savy. I'm a good two hours away from her when I'm up at school, so it'll be nice to be able to show her stuff. Plus with the new backgrounds she won't be able to see how filthy my apartment is :D .
Time machine was cool looking, although I'm not sure how often I'll truly use it.
The other thing that popped out at me (after just glancing at the website) was the really cool core animation vid they had up. That would be an amazing screen-saver, I hope they add that in to Leopard for impressing my PC friends. I'm still not sure what the potential uses are for developers are, other than eye candy. I haven't seen many apps that take advantage of core video yet so i wonder how useful this will be to developers. I'd love to hear what you all think about core animation and if it will have any utility.
Time machine was cool looking, although I'm not sure how often I'll truly use it.
The other thing that popped out at me (after just glancing at the website) was the really cool core animation vid they had up. That would be an amazing screen-saver, I hope they add that in to Leopard for impressing my PC friends. I'm still not sure what the potential uses are for developers are, other than eye candy. I haven't seen many apps that take advantage of core video yet so i wonder how useful this will be to developers. I'd love to hear what you all think about core animation and if it will have any utility.
rovex
Apr 11, 02:30 PM
Does Arn write every single article on this forum?
ghostlines
Mar 26, 04:21 AM
This post made me laugh. As a developer who is actively testing and reporting bugs I can tell you that without a doubt this is 100% false. My dozen of bug reports combined with a lot of different discussions happening in the developer forums is a pretty clear indicator they have a while to go.
Side note: Really? Techcrunch?
Yeah, I doubt they have a GM that fast, unless they want to have to release 10.7.1 in the same week of release.
I'm liking OS X lion a lot. I particulary like the simple on finger swipe up on a dock icon to expose it's windows. Maybe you can file a "bug report" that 2 finger swipe on a dock icon doesn't automatically invoke the right click command or make a new window :D. The more gestures the better!
Side note: Really? Techcrunch?
Yeah, I doubt they have a GM that fast, unless they want to have to release 10.7.1 in the same week of release.
I'm liking OS X lion a lot. I particulary like the simple on finger swipe up on a dock icon to expose it's windows. Maybe you can file a "bug report" that 2 finger swipe on a dock icon doesn't automatically invoke the right click command or make a new window :D. The more gestures the better!
jacg
Jul 27, 10:12 AM
Does anyone know what the maximum size is for a laptop drive is likely to be at the end of August? In other words, predict what Apple will put in a top spec Merom 15" MBP. I want to at least double the 80 GB in my PBG4.
Will MBP get a redesign? New keyboard that doesn't mark my screen perhaps? (BTW, I know nobody can actually give the answers to these questions...)
Will MBP get a redesign? New keyboard that doesn't mark my screen perhaps? (BTW, I know nobody can actually give the answers to these questions...)
WildCowboy
Aug 17, 01:01 AM
This is a very dumb question but is Photoshop running under rosetta in this test?
If Photoshop is that is nuts.
Yes...Photoshop can only run under Rosetta on the Intel machines...there's no universal version of it.
If Photoshop is that is nuts.
Yes...Photoshop can only run under Rosetta on the Intel machines...there's no universal version of it.
Gatesbasher
Apr 6, 04:18 PM
Link? Wasn't there the whole story a month or two ago that the actual number of Galaxy Tabs delivered to customers was much less than had been reported. How can this cause a 30% reduction in market share when the HIGH number of Galaxy Tabs was < 10% the number of iPads?
B
He's still using that 2,000,000 Tabs "shipped", adding it to iPads sold in the same period, and finding the Tab's number is 30% of the total. Very..."smooth", could I say?
B
He's still using that 2,000,000 Tabs "shipped", adding it to iPads sold in the same period, and finding the Tab's number is 30% of the total. Very..."smooth", could I say?