Want a quad processor machine?
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:37 pm
Apple just released a quad processor powermac. It's a dual dual-core machine: http://www.apple.com/powermac/
Page 1 of 2
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:37 pm
I hope this means 10.4.3 is out...
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:38 pm
... sadly, no 
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:41 pm
So a total of 8 cores?
I am mathematics win.
EDIT: No wait, 2 dual cores. Aww
I am mathematics win.
EDIT: No wait, 2 dual cores. Aww
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:43 pm
no i wont get another apple
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:45 pm
Suprisingly, it's not much faster than the 2.7 GHz. I thought 4x2.5 would be more than what they're showing
10 GHz vs 5.4
Nice lead time too...
Estimated Ship:
3-4 weeks
10 GHz vs 5.4
Nice lead time too...
Estimated Ship:
3-4 weeks
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:47 pm
It's not intel based, it's still ibm, so no hyperthreading.Foo wrote:So a total of 8 cores?
I am mathematics win.
EDIT: No wait, 2 dual cores. Aww
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:58 pm
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:05 am
Yeah, I know. I want to use that program so bad, but I cannot fathom spening $500 on an application right now. Those demos and flash goodies on that site are pretty damn cool. 
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:39 am
*bites into an apple*
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:50 am
Apple always looks so slick, too bad it sucks for gaming and most other shit.
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:35 am
Pretend you're a student, it's only 250. I think I might buy it when I buy a DSLR. The really cool thing about it is that it signifies Apple getting into the still image editing market... next stop photoshopCanis wrote:Yeah, I know. I want to use that program so bad, but I cannot fathom spening $500 on an application right now. Those demos and flash goodies on that site are pretty damn cool.
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:45 am
It's just as good as a PC for home/office work, and better for research applications and creative productivity. Games and recreation are only limited by the lack of support from developers, but the potential is definitely there.shiznit wrote:Apple always looks so slick, too bad it sucks for gaming and most other shit.
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:50 am
Three things my mac doesn't do as well as or better than a PC (one I care about, two I don't):
- Play brand new games
- Support bleeding edge file formats because there are very few good third party audio players
- Corporate desktop management is a bitch in a windows environment
- Play brand new games
- Support bleeding edge file formats because there are very few good third party audio players
- Corporate desktop management is a bitch in a windows environment
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:52 am
Oh I dont doubt apple will soon be THE leading name in digital media. They've got audio covered, and are tackling video with the iTunes store starting to sell video among other very easy to use and powerful applications being developed. They're advancing in strides in the photo business as well. The rest of the industry is meandering and allowing the current way of doing things to run the show. Folks think photoshop is the way photo editing is done, because that's what everyone seems to use. Apple's alternatives are classy, easy, and more powerful than similar products from competitors. Aperture is just downright awesome. It just fits with how I think about organizing and editing pictures.Dave wrote:Pretend you're a student, it's only 250. I think I might buy it when I buy a DSLR. The really cool thing about it is that it signifies Apple getting into the still image editing market... next stop photoshopCanis wrote:Yeah, I know. I want to use that program so bad, but I cannot fathom spening $500 on an application right now. Those demos and flash goodies on that site are pretty damn cool.
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:03 am
Apple needs to support HE-AAC, which is why im bitching about bleeding edge file formats. I just encoded a file at 48 kbit/parametric stereo and it sounds incredible for the file size. 3:41 track = 1.3 MB. They can double the "15000" songs number.
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:31 am
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:33 am
How many processors do they need to pack into a mac before they can claim to compete with PCs?
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:51 am
Who cares? You'd take it if you were offered one.
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:56 am
That looks really, really, really, really, nice. If Apple was pure evil, they'd release a PC only limited demo, and you'd have to buy a mac to run the full version.
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:58 am
I have surplus cash at the moment, but I will not give in to the Apple halo effect. Never. I will stand my ground.
Err... maybe once the Intel based Macs come out I will give it some thought. But not a moment until then.
Err... maybe once the Intel based Macs come out I will give it some thought. But not a moment until then.
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:02 am
You mind dropping by in my mp3 thread and answering my question regarding mp3 and wma? It's a noobish inquiry, Juggs' helped me along quite well, but I'm also interested in the input of others.Dave wrote:Who cares? You'd take it if you were offered one.
tia
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:05 am
Or you could haxx0r the x86 os x version to run on your dell and .. nm hehmjrpes wrote:That looks really, really, really, really, nice. If Apple was pure evil, they'd release a PC only limited demo, and you'd have to buy a mac to run the full version.
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:12 am
Oh well, my dual 2.5 was bleeding edge for about 6 months. Can't complain really, wasn't going to upgrade until the intel powermacs are out. Even then, the thought of migrating all my audio stuff across gives me hives....
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:11 pm
up to 76.6 gigaflops
lol
lol